Talk:British Isles/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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))

Thank you Sarah. I'm well aware of the illogicalities of trying to group the islands geographically or policitically and was not proposing to do either - I was merely pointing out the illogical position of another user, who claimed proximity was a reason for non-inclusion but was happy to accept the Shetlands. Personally I do not believe "British Isles" means two different things - I think "British Isles and Ireland" is simply an erroneous way of saying the more correct "UK and Ireland" but that otherwise the term is rarely explicitly applied to any entirely political or geographical grouping. The "British Isles" is not a term that designates an "archipelago", it's a term used for any of several islands within an arbitrary and ill-defined area and we have to accept what the sources say they should be. This isn't my confusion - this is the confused nature of the definitions we have. What is truly illogical is the way in which some people on this talk page, on both sides of the argument, have found it necessary to exclude certain accepted parts of the British Isles in order to make their concise, all-encompassing definitions valid. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 09:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I found another source last night - I thought the "one website" attribution made the article look a little amateurish so have included the extra source. This appears to be a minority view but deserves a mention.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 09:42, 18 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))

Whilst, because I have no insecurities concerning my nationality, I am in no way offended by your anti-British rants, and your constantly comparing us with the Nazis, ad nauseam, I would like to ask you what would happen if one of the British editors here began describing the Irish as a bunch of violent, idiotic drunks (or take your pick from any other stereotype)? I think you will find that the British editors here have always been civil in the face of quite a lot of insulting language. TharkunColl 08:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• And TharkunColl, I never took insult from you either;) 86.42.160.73 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that is it the political entity, "The British Empire" I accurately contrasted unfavourably with the Third Reich. Your stereotypes would be akin to "nigger"; if I were to claim that English folk are all football louts or that they are not too keen on personal hygene, THAT would be the equivalent of your "violent drunk". And if some British editor used such language I'd point that out to them. Politely if course. (Sarah777 08:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Sarah777, TharkunColl - please see my comment above. Take it to your respective talk pages if you want to continue this, but it isn't appropriate for this (or any) article talk page. WP:TALK: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Thank you. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Your personal opinions and speculations are irrelevant. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I third that. But in my defence - I am only responding. We should stick to improving the article here; and the single biggest improvement is CLEARLY removing the offensive name. (Sarah777 18:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Some find it offensive, the majority of the world does not. The name isn't being changed so forget about that and concentrate on improving the article. Ben W Bell talk 18:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The "majority of the world" has probably never even heard of the "British Isles"! In fact the "majority of the world" don't speak and cannot read English. But Wiki policy on offensive names states that the user of offensive language isn't the arbiter - it is the OFFENDED party. If a group regard something as offensive, it IS offensive. And as I have indicated, the only way we can improve this article is to give it an acceptable name. As for whether the name will change - it took 800 years to get the Brutish out of Ireland. And I am both patient and persistent; and there are many many more Irish folk like me! (Sarah777 19:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

There are articles on the British Isles in many other Wikipedia languages, translating as British Isles. It is a term used worldwide. You have made it very clear you find the term offensive, but it doesn't remove the fact the term is well used and widely accepted and little verifiable evidence has been provided to the contrary. I support your right to choose what to find offensive and what not to. Shall we start a campaign to rename the "Irish Sea" as it implies ownership of it and all bordering the Irish Sea is obviously Irish? No as it is a geographic term. Some may use British Isles for political means and interpret it as a political term but the matter is it is an extremely widely accepted and used term, in English and many other languages, for these islands. Ben W Bell talk 19:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Remark, Ben, I hope that you don't start a campaign to rename the Irish sea. Why? What did we Irish do to you British, that you would contemplate a move like that? 86.42.188.98 23:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question - who invaded the other first? In the immediate post-Roman period the main threat to Britain was from Irish invaders (often in alliance with the Picts). Indeed, during the Dark Ages the Irish occupied most of what is now Wales, and, as is well known, the Kingdom of Scotland was created by Irish settlers. This Irish threat to post-Roman Britain was so great that the British invited the Saxons over as mercenaries, but later proved unable to pay them. So the Irish are directly responsible for the English coming to Britain. The English, of course, were later conquered by the Normans, and it was the Normans who invaded Ireland in the 12th century, not the English - at this time the English were just serfs in their own country. TharkunColl 09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, the Irish invited the Normans into Ireland too. Obviously they made some poor choices regarding their guests. (Sarah777 09:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, one disgruntled regional soured-up king with an axe to grind, Dermot McMurragh hardly = Irish? 86.42.128.185 12:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well calling Ireland a "British Isle" , is a bit to calling Tel Aviv by the name "Hitlersburg". Sorry, no offence intended. 86.42.160.73 19:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, if there is a large body of objection to the name of that sea in the UK or the Isle of Man, or if the UK (or the UK in its capacity as handling the external relations of the Isle of Man, or Manx government themselves) objects to the term, and if the Irish government confirms issues with the phrase by avoiding use of the term in dialogue between respective nations, then I think it would be a notable point to add to the Irish Sea. (I see that User_talk:Feline1 has been barred for editing the terminology page re: a "Irish sea controversy", and his/her edits still stand on the Irish Sea article, which I have marked as dubious.) However, until then Wikipedia is not here to "start a campaign." (Although, if it was considered offensive on Man or in the UK, I would support its renaming or appropriately avoid its use, as I'm sure you would do with terms that would be similarly offensive in Ireland.) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I've just spotted that the "sea formerly known as the Irish Sea" is known as Mooir Vannin (Manx Sea) in Manx and has the alternative name of Muir Meann (Manx Sea) in Irish. Yet, the languages of Great Britain push an overtly POV'ed and offensive moniker on the sea (Welsh: Môr Iwerddon; Scottish Gaelic: Muir Eireann; and English: Irish Sea.) Ah, alas, its seems we can blame the Brits again.) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Who can be offended by the truth? (Sarah777 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Manx Sea would be fine with me. (Sarah777 01:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

You misunderstand, I have no interest in renaming the Irish Sea, it is a geographic entity with a name, I know of no one with an issue with the name. I was just using it as an example. Ben W Bell talk 06:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I do understand Ben; I was making the point that "Manx" is not an offensive term. Unlike the other word. (Sarah777 09:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

I find any inclusion of ireland(ROI) in the term british isles geographic or not offensive

weather or not it is a more well known term is an irrelevence , this was obviously due to the greater influence in terms of media an world exposure the british imperial government enjoyed in the past, this in no way however imparts the title with any credibility when used to include ireland(ROI) today

the criteria used in deciding who should be included in the title should lie with the sovereign states governments/peoples wishes, others views are unimportant

and the facts are that citzens of ireland(ROI) through their government have stated that they do not wish the term used in relation to their country it is not taught nor present in irish geographic texts etc

the british government has itself diplomatically refrained from the use of the term as have many british media sources

wikipedia editors should understand that it is these facts which are paramount, not weather the term is bounded about by a few people outside of ireland(ROI) in ignorance of its offensive nature Caomhan27 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Governments do not control language, no matter how much you might want them to. TharkunColl 22:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor indeed do they control the content of WP. Abtract 22:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said they did i simply stated that the government of ireland speaks for its people in saying they find the term unacceptable whatever the context if it is used to include Ireland(ROI)and it is my opinion that their voices should be the most important in deciding if the term which includes them and their country is acceptable or not. do you disagree? A question i would like to see answered is why in fact do you and others wish to support the continued usage of that term when its conatations clearly offends another countries people? why not continue to use it but agree that Ireland(ROI) and its islands should be excluded, surely thats the right thing to do Caomhan27 09:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Caomhan27, there was a recent discussion at WT:NC about using "official" names instead of popular names, but as things stand, Wikipedia policy is to use the most commonly used English-language name for an entity. So whatever the Irish or British government call the British Isles won't affect what this article is called. A secondary issue is that democratically elected governments do not necessarily represent the views of their citizens - there are many examples of this (not least the fact that Hitler was democratically elected, since certain editors on here seem to love bringing World War II analogies into this). Waggers 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont believe common policy should apply as in this case as there are mitigating circumstances and i believe through the content of the british isles article wikipedia is unknowingly taking a political stance why?

Wikipedia taking a political stance? I understand the wikipedia policy/reasons for entering a the term

however i believe that this is not simply "a term" and should be looked at under slightly different criteria

firstly its offensive to most of the populace of ireland(roi) this is clearly demonstratably via the government of irelands view of the term and their request that the irish embassy in britain moniter the media there and object to its use, the fact that it is now not used in irish geography books, the fact that the british-irish council does not use the term, the fact that the british government avoids its use, the fact that it is now the british and irish lions etc etc its ludicrous to suggest that simply because their is no existing poll of which i know to actually show this that maybe its not true. the poll would be a waste of time and money as everyone(in general) in ireland(roi) would be like minded in their aversion to its use in the above context Its merely a reflection of reality it would be like asking for a poll in england as to if they would like to be included in the new irish isles silly

secondly and most importantly by wikipedia lending credence to the term in regards to its inclusion of ireland(roi) it is treading on very dangerous ground and goes far beyond the simply inclusion of a popluar term for various reasons(popular in its country of origin and some of its colonies)

the existance of the articles heading "british isles" is fine, however through its content subsequently agreeing (bar the inclusion of controversial)with its contention that today ireland(roi) is part of that said title, it is lending credibilty to this contention regarding ireland(roi, therefore overiding the peoples and governments wishes of the democratic UN and EU sovereign member state of ireland,that they do not wish the term applied to them

this means that wikipedia is taking a political stance as stated the "term is not recognised in any legal or inter-governmental sense."

if the term is to be used it should be in a past tense regarding ireland(roi)and should not include statistical data etc on ireland(roi)today

it could possibly state that it was at one time forcibly included under the term during britains occupation of the island, and is sometimes is still mistakenly included by people in the much larger populated english speaking countries like britian (64 million) etc and is therefore utilised more than the the newer politically correct terms such as IONA etc Caomhan27 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, Waggers, now your comparing the Irish government to Nazis. Some tact for the love of peace. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't be putting words in my mouth there, Sony, would you? I made no such comparison. All I said was that democratically elected governments don't necessarily reflect the views of the people they represent, and cited an example of that. Waggers 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

"since certain editors on here seem to love bringing World War II analogies into this" - there are surely plenty more run-of-the-mill examples of governments not reflecting the will of the people for you to draw down a comparasion? In any case, as we can see from the plentiful evidience, this is not one of them. (Unless, of course, you object to the British government avoiding it out of tact.) --sony-youth^pléigh 13:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, alright. Simmer down. (Still waiting for a reference for this "[British Isles] is probably the most common term used to describe the islands.") --sony-youth^pléigh 22:49, 29 July 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))

Lol, Squeaktroll? Please see Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal" and also assumeing good faith. To call me a vandal isnt exactly an argument and my removal of POV cannot be classified as vandalism. Please, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Boldness

Sony and W. Frank; bold indeed! Am somewhat surprised ye haven't been zapped already! (Sarah777 23:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

Shhhhhhh...W. Frank ✉ 12:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

W.Frank, I consider that comment and your edit summary a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please refrain from this in future.--Vintagekits 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Calm. If we can't laugh at ourselves, somebody else will. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What comment is in breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA???! I am obviously missing something. How can "Shhhhhhh...." be so described? (Sarah777 23:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

British foreigners

21 Sept, 1557-8: 'License to William Stritch FitzNicholas and James Stritch Fitznicholas of Limerick, merchants, to trade with the French, British, Scotch or other foreigners, for salt, wine and iron’ So much for the "We are all British, always have been and always will be" of the new British nationalists here when even 16th century Tudor patents treated those from Britain as being foreigners to the Irish. The myths of British nationalism are astonishing, and persistently so.193.1.172.104 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. (Assuming this is a genuine reference!) it implies neither the Scottish or Irish were regard as "British" in 1558; only the English (and Welsh?). (Sarah777 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

We need a source for thisbefore debatying its merits, SqueakBox 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

True. Though a quick Google reveals there WAS a "Nicholas Stritch FitzNicholas" of Limerick. So it's not only modern celebrities who burden their offspring with challenging names. (Sarah777 20:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

... so who were these "British" if they were not Scots or Irish? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It suggests they were the English and Welsh; those in the Kingdom of England. (Sarah777 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I don't understand. Is this supposed to add something to the Ireland being (or not being) part of the British Isles disagreement? "Ireland is part of Britain, always has been and always will be" isn't really something anyone's said yet, and it's certainly not in the article. Ireland being part of the British Isles is. The only real question this source raises is whether Scotland was regarded as part of Britain in the 16th century - hardly something for the British Isles article.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope; it suggests the British Authorities didn't regard the Irish as British and regarded the British as foreigners from the Irish perspective. Which would suggest that in 1558 the notion of "British" was synonymous with the English Kingdom. If established, such information would be important both in the geo-misnomer issue and in the History section. (Sarah777 06:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Off the cuff, the groups most likely to claim a "British" identity in the mid sixteenth century would have been the Welsh or the Bretons, probably less likely to be the Cornish. Of course by then the (Welsh) Tudors were laying claim to Arthurian ancestry, which might explain the England = British possibility. About then Mr Dee iirc was using the "British" term to say the English and Scots were all one people, with the English monarch in charge surprise surprise. Again, it's not long after the creation of the kingdom of Ireland, so in bureaucratic terms Ireland was indeed a separate country under English rule. Wonder which identity the rather Norman sounding FitzNicholas's took? Another thought is that well into the medieval period the term Scots was being used of the Irish, but imo that was probably out of date by the time of this document. All interesting speculation about a primary source, but of course to meet WP:A we need a secondary source giving the opinion before any suggestions get added to the article. .. dave souza, talk 08:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Wonder which identity the rather Norman sounding FitzNicholas's took?" Norman sounding name, 1558, Deasmond? Mixed Gaelic and English custom, would have identified as Irish, and specifically not English. Would have been utterly opposed to the new "Kingdom of Ireland." (See: Desmond_Rebellions)

I would also doubt the Welsh/Breton/Cornish monopoly on British. Ownership of "British" had been contested by the Anglo-Saxons and was coming back into fad in the 16th century (as has caused us untold misery on this page). It may sound neat to put these labels on people according to bloodline, but, as our Anglo-Gaelic-French and patriotic Irishmen, Willy and Jimmy FitzNicholas, would testify, after centuries of living in a place, things aren't so neat.

Its also dubious that "the (Welsh) Tudors were laying claim to Arthurian ancestry ... might explain the England = British possibility." Why would the Tudors begin to lay claim to Arthurian ancestry if people did not put stock into the idea that England was not equals to British? Claiming ancestry to the ancient Britons was a big plus for the Tudors because people saw British was "real" English, don't you think? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with improving the British Isles article? Waggers 11:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Everything, dear Waggers, everything. (Sarah777 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

The license, even if genuine (and notice the suspiciously modern spelling), is irrelevent. The term British and the term British Isles are not synonymous. TharkunColl 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Many edits were made in the past on the basis that "British" was the proper collective term for all of the inhabitants the islands. The case was posited that this had been so since the time of the Romans. Counter cases had been put that from the period between shortly after the Roman conquest of Britain up until the attributed date of the first usage the term "British Isles" in English, that "British" referred to the lower part of the larger island. This counter argument was virulently opposed, and proof was demanded. Proving that the other people of the islands were not known as "British" is effectively impossible, since it means proving a negative. The above quote however succinctly demonstrates that in 1558 "Irish", "Scots" and "British" were seen as disctinct from each other in contemporary parlance, so it can be drawn that the "Irish" and the "Scots" were not "British." Thus we have a book end of British being the southern part of the larger island c.100 AD and being not the northern part of the larger island or the smaller island at c.1560 AD.

While not stated, overtly, it can also be drawn from the quote above that the "British" being spoken about were "English." Citations had been removed from the article concerning the nature of the geographical writing of the author who is attributed by the OED to have coined the phrase "British Isles." IIRC these citations explained how his geographic writings were influenced by a nationalistic bent and that he would coin words to promote his nationalistic cause. These had been removed on the basis that the author was "English", not "British." From the above quote we can see that "English" and "British" were synonymous at the period in question. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if it's genuine (and no proof has been forthcoming), it is just one document amongst countless thousands. Perhaps the author was just an ignoramous. Proponents of the view that the English were refered to as British in the 16th century need to cite a lot more evidence than one stray document. In the following century, under the Stuarts, the English strongly resisted the label British, equating it with the pan-Celtic ambitions of the Stuart monarchy. TharkunColl 11:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Again we are being asked to prove a negative. Whether later resisted or not, we can accept that the English were called "British" during this period. Can we prove that the Irish and Scots were also called "British"? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A single, obscure, stray reference proves nothing of the sort. It may be that the person who wrote it was completely stupid or ill-educated. If the English were called British, there would be far, far more than just this. Furthermore, can somebody provide proof that this is genuine? Or are you prepared to accept the word of an anonymous editor? Why is the spelling distinctly un-16th century? To me, the wording looks 18th or 19th century (use of the word "Scotch" for example, which for some reason I cannot fathom is now frowned upon by the Scots). But, since this says nothing about the use of the term British Isles, why are we even having this debate? TharkunColl 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right on several counts, and I'm not going to pursue this any further. We know that "British" was relatively rare until the 18th century. What sparked my interest was where (and who) did people associate it with at the time of the coinage of the term "British Isles"? Was it, like the Greeks and Romans (and today, I guess) an all encompassing term? Or was it specific (or specifically meaningful) to one people? I guess we already knew the answer to that. sony-youth^pléigh 16:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what relevance this has to improving the article, which is about the British Isles, not the inhabitants thereof. Waggers 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Another 30-odd Kb (and how many minutes) wasted discussing the "contribution" of an anon, shared college IP address, to an article talk page, because of one unsourced statement. Same IP received a vandalism warning 8 minutes later... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

As you say, "shared college IP address." --sony-youth^pléigh 16:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed; but surely unlikely that one anon editor would log off a college PC and another would immediately sit down at the same PC, also access WP, and commit some vandalism - in 8 minutes? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wireless access and group routers mean that a whole class, or indeed college, can simultaneously share the same static IP as part of a shared hosting web server environment, I believe. W. Frank ✉ 16:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Navigation Acts may be relevant here? (re the license). --Red King 19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I note that certain British contributors are still in denial of the fact the "British" Isles is a political term; the constant whine "what has this got to do with improving the article" is, frankly, getting rather irritating. Please stop - if that is all you have to contribute. (Sarah777 21:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, Sarah, I'm an Irish contributor. The constant soapboxing is not only annoying but also in breach of WP:TALK. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And the constant quoting of Wiki policies is also irritating; especially as they would, ironically, be more appropriately directed at those who usually cite them. I am discussing how to improve the article; you are discussing other editors. And I never said you were not Irish; but your are obviously British as well if you imagine you live in a place called the "British Isles". And refrain from personal attacks; they are in breach of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. (Sarah777 23:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

At the very least, "constant whine" and "still in denial" are in breach of WP:CIVIL. The pot addressing the kettle. MarkThomas 06:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, we're only reminding you of Wikipedia's policies because you keep breaking them. Please read WP:TALK carefully and start obeying it instead of whinging about it. If you don't like Wikipedia's policies, please suggest a change through the proper channels rather than flagrantly breaching them here. Waggers 09:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've read a lot in the original State Papers Ireland 16thC and don't recall use of the term British - nor the term Celtic for that matter. Perhaps the term British was used the odd time, but there's little significance to it. Stick to the OED, which gives citations of first printed use of BI. The inference is that it's a political tag.--Shtove 22:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, we know it is a political tag. Unfortunately some would-be censors of discussion here can't grasp that fact. They continue to flagrantly breach WP:NPOV and define a political position as some a priori reality. Sad really. (Sarah777 22:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

The first unified state that encompassed the whole of the British Isles (except, as always, the Isle of Man), was that created by Cromwell in the 1650s. And it specifically did not use the term "British" to describe itself. TharkunColl 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So, Cromwell (and his contempraries) didn't see 'British' as an appropriate descriptor for the islands, their inhabitants, or a polity thereof? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They eschewed the term British because it was too closely associated with the Celts, and with the ambitions of the Stuart monarchy which they had just got rid of. TharkunColl 13:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah - so that explains why, as an English person, I am deeply offended by the continual misuse of the term to describe my nationality. Just because most of the world uses it to describe me or my nationality doesn't give Wikipedia any right to use such a label.  ;-) Bazza 14:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

... and during during Restoration? (Of course not that long before 1707.) So before Cromwell, "British" was championed in England? And presumeably afterwards? So, that's a ten-year window when British was "eschewed", and specifically by Roundheads - what did the Royalists think? --sony-youth^pléigh 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Stuarts promoted the concept of "British" (as a quasi-nationality, rather than a geographical designation), for the simple reason that they were not themselves English, but Scottish - and therefore, as we today would say, Celtic (the term "Celtic", of course, was not used in that period - but a similar concept was expressed by the word "British"). They were the first monarchs to rule the whole British Isles, and sought to unify their disparate kingdoms as one unified state. This proposal was rejected out of hand by the English parliament in 1604, so James had to content himself with a mere title - King of Great Britain. If you want to find the origin of the term British being appropriated by what became known as the British state, look to the Scottish Stuarts. By 1707, a hundred years later, the pretentions of the Stuarts had been neutralised, and perhaps the English were beginning to see the benefits of claiming to be British. TharkunColl 15:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So we have the Welsh Tudors and the Scottish Stuarts both sparking out the "British" - not to mention good old Athelstan of yore, which if I remember rightly you were once happy to point out that he claimed to be "King of All Britain." What do these people have in common? Oh, they're kings and queens of England? Do we have a Scottish king, or an Irish leader, prior to union using the word 'British.' --sony-youth^pléigh 16:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Athelstan, and many other Anglo-Saxon kings, did indeed claim to be king of all Britain (and in some cases their claim was justified, having received the submission and fealty of Welsh and Scottish rulers). But at no point did they ever claim to be British, because in those days the word most definitely referred to the Celts. I don't know if there are Scottish or Irish rulers who used the word British before 1603, but there were most certainly Welsh rulers who did so. Let us not forget that John Dee, apparently the first to use British Isles in English, was of Welsh family. In using the term British, he was harking back to the legendary days of King Arthur. What he was saying was that the current rulers of England, because of their position, had a right to claim the Celtic inheritance of the original Britons. It is also clear that his ideas took a very long time to catch on amongst the English. TharkunColl 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, if I hear you correctly, you're saying that "British" (personnally, I wouldn't see the proplem "Britain", since the change is only to the nounal form) was - and had been - significant to/of people of the shouthern portion of the larger island (to varying degrees over time, of course), but you cannot say that it was, or had been, significant to/of people of the northern portion of the larger island or of the smaller island. This is largely reflective of its significance today, also (see), and is what I believe - today and (very broadly speaking) historically. (I'm taking c.1600 as the point of "was" and prior to that as "had been".) --sony-youth^pléigh 07:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the concept of nationhood surrounding most of the powerful European states is a relatively modern thing, and along with that, the concept of nationhood for expanded states like "Britain" where the central nation (England) had conquered surrounding nations (Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Cornwall) obviously took time to evolve. But I don't think that's seriously disputed anyway is it? No serious scholar thinks that the concept of "Britishness" is an ancient thing, surely. MarkThomas 13:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it greatly, but the myths of nationhood take on epic form. We are talking about the concepts of nationhood, and specifically the words used to describes those concepts, surrounding two European states, not just one, and not just the "powerful." (Actually five, but you get my drift.) --sony-youth^pléigh 15:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If truth be known, the legend of king Arthur comes down from the legend of Cormac mac Airt, an Irish king in the 4th century. The legend came down through Scottish mythology to be appropriated by the Britons. And the so called Celts never came near Ireland. Irish people are descended form peoples from northern Iberia (pre Moorish influence, in northern Spain). A totally different origin from the peoples of Britain, and then once upon a time, Britain was England and Wales only, and no more than that. Scotland (Alba), was not interpreted as Britain. That's why Irish people are Q-celtic, and British people are P-celtic. Two distinct nationalities, so some of these arguments are based on a false nascent history. Gold♣heart 01:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If actual truth be known, the legend of Arthur comes from numerous different sources, many of which have been lost. To state categorically that it comes from a single Irish source is just wrong, and an example of modern "appropriation" in the other direction. I also fail to see how the Q-Celtic and P-Celtic peoples can have a "totally different origin", since they both speak versions of the same original language. You are also wrong about the term "Britain" - it was, in fact, applied to the whole island. The fact that the Romans didn't conquer Scotland is probably what you're thinking of, but the political entitity known as the Roman province of Britain must not be confused with the island. Furthermore, Britain was a new name, derived from the name for the whole group of islands (i.e. British Isles) - the island itself was originally called Albion, which is the origin of the name Alba for Scotland. The term was only later restricted to Scotland after the Anglo-Saxon settlement of lowland Britain. Almost everything you said is completely incorrect, and could easily be interpreted as a desire to make the Irish/Gaels/Q-Celts seem completely distinct from their neighbours and close kin in Britain. Talk about "false nascent history"! TharkunColl 09:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That (Cormac mac Airt being the origin of the King Arthur myth) is one of the strangest claims I've heard in a long time. Their respective mythologies bear almost no resemblence to each other. Any sources for it? The King Arthur article makes reference to many possible sources for the origin of the tales, none of which mention Cormac. If the Arthur myths are associated with any one part of Britain, its Wales, not Scotland. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly not the most popular item to be spoken of. But people who are very well versed in the respective legends can see the similarities. And you have to remember too, that the histories (mythologies) split over a 1000 years ago. Unfortunately I don't have the study at hand at the moment. Gold♣heart 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Article. Improving. How? Waggers 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Waggers. Gold♣heart 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Waggers. You gotta look at this laterally. Clearly this has everything to do with improving the article. (Sarah777 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Might I suggest the first paragraph? It's the reason for the POV tag. We can't agree about whether the term is "controversial" or "sometimes controversial". Additionally we seem to be stuck with the unsourced statement that the term is avoided in discussions between the two governments. How about, "Although the term is common in Britain, there are many in Ireland who object to its use. It is not a term that is recognised by the government of the Republic of Ireland."? Or something to that effect?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The thing is the term isn't just common in Britain, it's also common worldwide even translated directly into many other languages and used for the islands. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Ben, that's quite untrue. I have travelled the world, and I have never heard the term being used, so it's not common worldwide as you state. That is my first-hand experience. Gold♣heart 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My reason for not mentioning the rest of the world was simply so that we could talk about how widely the term is recognised within the British Isles in the first couple of sentences. Apart from this, is the wording objectionable or is it merely that point? Can nobody come up with a wording that says many people in Ireland don't like the term? Becaus we're all agreed that's correct aren't we? It's a fairly simple thing to express. I tend to think that if the term's commonly used worldwide that should be pretty easy to verify - I've heard people outside Britain use it. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. But I think the problem is that many feel the main improvement available is a name change(s). (For example I am currently researching other articles about countries to establish that "Ireland under British Occupation" would be a more appropriate term for the country between 1800 and 1922 than an imaginary "United Kingdom". Perhaps, as we have Wikipedias in various languages, we need an Local English for articles relating to Ireland? So we could have an article called "Britain and Ireland" and let the current one sit where it is. Then you could improve your one and we could improve ours? (Sarah777 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Why should the name be changed? It's by far the most common phrase used for the islands, and just how many people object to the term has never been established. Remember the main crux for inclusion is verifiability. That the term is widely used worldwide is easily verified, the objections to the term aren't very well verified unfortunately. A name change to the article isn't an option I'm afraid, and a rename of "Britain and Ireland" doesn't even cover the same thing as the term British Isles. This constant muttering that the name of the article should be changed isn't helping improve the article in any way, it's just the same people trotting out the same things with no evidence to support a change and even little verifiable evidence to support to what level the term is controversial. Ben W Bell talk 19:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The page should be about the term "British Isles", and nothing else. Having a history, a geography, a natural history, etc about 4 distinct countries, and 5 if you want to include NI, is clearly an exercise of purest pov. The article as it stands is completely unnecessary, it repeats content in other pages, and is pretty much a fork. Gold♣heart 19:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Removing the article completely is one option. The objection to "Britain and Ireland" as a title, that it doesn't include all of these Islands is exactly the same problem as exists with "British Isles", as most of Ireland and the Channel Islands aren't British isles. So both terms are flawed descriptions of the islands as a group (in fact the islands are not geographically even a single group). But at least "Britain and Ireland" isn't an offensive politically POV term. (Sarah777 20:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

"Removing the article completely..." Because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Can we please stop feeding the trolls? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 20:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Hi Bastun, I assume good faith on your part, but if not I should like to remind you of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. If we allow Wikipedia to slide into a personal attack mode, then nothing can be discussed. Please address the issues, and add to the discussion. Gold♣heart 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun. I am not feeding trolls. I was reacting to a suggested by Gold♣heart who pointed out something I hadn't thought of. (A fine example of lateral thinking). As there are already articles on all the alledged component parts of the imaginary "British" Isles why the need for a collective article when we can't even agree what is included in the collective?

And I think describing someone who makes a suggestion you disagree with as a "troll" is clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL. (Sarah777 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Let's be absolutely clear - I'm accusing you of trolling, not anyone else. Much as you may hate it, the British Isles are not "imaginary". They are described as such by people in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere around the world. Noone will be changing the name of the article, or deleting it. Goodnight. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It would not matter if your attack is directed toward any one editor. Breaches of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA damage the whole Wikipedia community. Gold♣heart 21:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A Google of British Isles gives this article as the #1 result. And #2? The British Isles (terminology) article. Does this make a difference to the debate?--Shtove 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No. That's the #1 and #2 result out of 1.47 million results. Pick pretty much any reasonable term and you'll find that the Wikipedia result (if there is a page on it on WP) will feature on the first few results of a google search, because of the nature of google's search algorithm. By the same token, entering "Ireland" on google returns the Wiki articles as #4 and #5, after the Irish Times site and a tourism one. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules Google (or vice versa?), and Google rules Web searching. For anyone using the Web to seek out knowledge on the British Isles, those two articles set the terms. People may go deeper, by clicking on the second or tenth page of the search result or by following the links in the articles, but as a piece of advertising the British Isles article (especially the intro) is running in front, with a wide lead. How might that relate back to the claim that the term British Isles is widely used outside Britain?--Shtove 21:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should make a strong objection to the Irish Republic claiming the name "Ireland". It has no right to it, since it's a gerrymander state that only occupies 2/3 (or whatever) of Ireland. TharkunColl 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"We"? O Rly? WP is not a soapbox. (Oh, and the Irish Republic ceased to exist in 1922). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dispute Tag

Hmm... about half of this page is irrelevant and most of the rest is either people pointing this out or telling each other to be civil. I suggest it would be a good idea to start ignoring what's written here unless you believe it might affect the article. I'm going to take out the dispute tag now and rewrite the first few lines because it's not really being discussed. But anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to put the tag back or change what I've written.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What 'dispute tag' are you referring to? (Sarah777)

It was at the top of the article page. It said "the neutrality of this article is disputed". --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see it. I have reverted your edits because a) there is obviously a dispute and b) your edits remove the term controversial; something both the article and its title clearly are. Don't be naughty and change stuff while they are being discussed. That leads to edit wars. (Sarah777 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, please! The tag was put there because someone objected to the opening line. I suggested an alternative. You were the only person to respond (and I'm very grateful) but you gave what seemed like cautious approval. As I indicated you were at liberty to change what you wanted and you could have improved what I'd written. Your objection seems to me to be to the title and there's a different (name of article disputed) tag for that. There's a disagreement about the word "controversial". Some people point out that if anyone disagrees with something it fits the definition. Others wish to change to "sometimes controversial" because, while they agree it's controversial, they argue there are areas of the world in which nobody finds the term offensive and in which the term can't be called controversial. They therefore feel the blanket "controversial" label gives an exaggerated impression of the extent of the controversy. Both have very good points. That's why I was trying to suggest something else. It wasn't naughty - the discussion had died out days ago. Your reversion has left an unattributed assertion about the term being avoided in inter-governmental relations. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So, did anyone see what I wrote before it was reverted to the "established version" does anyone else object? And if so could they improve my version or the established version? Or is this version so established that the NPOV tag can go?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Lo. Perhaps my reversion wasn't fully considered. How about removing the tag but leave the text as it is? (Sarah777 01:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

(Edit conflict) Sounds reasonable. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well the dispute tag is only supposed to be there temporarily - it's not meant as an alternative to consensus. If people don't use the talk page to discuss difficulties the tag shouldn't be there - so yes I suppose I agree. Nevertheless the current version gives some editors the upper hand and leaves a version that I for one am unhappy with. Could we not just say "the term is controversial in Ireland"? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 08:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well some people will tell you that they use the term in Ireland without controversy: and its true that its not always controversial in Ireland. I like Lo2u's version that was reverted actually, though with the reservation that many in Ireland may appear unaceeptable to some users. Pretty Green 17:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Aye - the question of quantifying objection/controversy has been debated here before (ad infinitum!). In a nutshell, it can't be quantified, because noone can point to a source showing the level of objection/controversy. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Daily use is difficult to quantify; reading the history of this issue I have come across the occasional British editor who objects to the term; therefore it is controversial in Britain? It is certainly controversial in both parts of Ireland, including the British bit. And just today in the Irish Times I came across a usage from several decades back by the daughter of a British Army retiree "The British Isles and Ireland"! Probably the best name yet in terms of accuracy. (Sarah777 20:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, I have often heard that that term also being used. From my experience, it's the BBC, in their weather-forecasts, who mostly use the term colloquially, as a catch-all expression for Great Britain and its local sea area. Being a foreign broadcaster, why would the BBC give a weather-forecast for Ireland? Gold♣heart 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My wording talked of many in Ireland - I think that can be assumed to include the bit at the top :-). There are plenty of sources quoted that claim a lot of people in Ireland object. You're both right, we can't quantify - but "many" isn't a quantity - it's an appropriately vague term. I think it's fair to draw from the sources that "many in Ireland object to the term", considering the content of footnote 2[6]. The impression given is more accurate than a bare "the term is controversial", don't you think?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See your point, but it's really more objectional than controversial. How would that fit? Gold♣heart 21:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "many" is vague. But how many are needed to become "many"? More than "some"? Apart from on this talk page, the last time I heard of anyone objecting to the term was last year when one person complained about its use in a school atlas. The article existed quite well for a some (many? :P) time without quantifying the level of objection, even vaguely, and I still think that works best. Agree with Gold_heart that a better term might be "objectionable" rather than "controversial". As for Kevin Myers - meh. He's an opinion columnist with an agenda of provoking controversy - I wouldn't set any store by him. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow: "objective" or "objectionable"? In what way?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well controversial would meaning causing controversy. Whereas the term is generally avoided in Ireland. It's not recognised as a legitimate term by many (don't know the exact figure, but it's sizable) people in Ireland because of the perceived political connotations. That's the way it is. Gold♣heart 21:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As Goldheart says; it isn't 'controversial' in Ireland in the sense that it is hardly ever used! Use the term and the chances of you being "corrected" are rather high. And it wasn't Myers; it was from Brendan McWilliam's "Weather Eye" column I got the reference to "BI & Ireland". (Unfortunately subscription only on the net). It is commonly used in Dublin in everyday speech; along with "Britain and Ireland" and (more in the media) "these islands". ANYTHING to avoid the objectionable "British Isles". (Sarah777 21:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

LOL the number of arguments I've seen over "many" and "some"... The line at the moment says it's controversial which is true, technically - in the same way that if I say I object to hearing the word "goat" I make it controversial, by a strict definition (if you see what I mean...). Of course, the problem with not quantifying (saying "people in Ireland object" or "the term is controversial) is that it will always sound like everyone objecting.

Anyway it seems nobody likes the word "controversial". Could it just be said that the term is not commmonly used and that the Irish government has expressed its disapproval? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! Hold on. I have no problem at all with the term 'controversial'. It exactly describes the situation, does it not? (Sarah777 00:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Well 'controversial' has been used for many months (years now?) on the aritcle, suggetsing that even if people aren't toally comfortable with it, there is at least some acceptability for it. To bring it back to something a little more practical: do we prepare Lou22's version, the current one or think that they're pretty much of a muchness? I like what Lou's done and think that we should perhaps go with that? --Pretty Green 11:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Rejected", I like, but I think it is important to note that it is not used (or avoided, or "euphemised") politically. Mostly I prefer "rejected" over "controversy" because, except on Wikipedia, this rejection is largely uncontroversial. I would like the "political" note because, whether the term is political or not, when a term is avoided politically, its use become politicised. All sides in the NI process acknowledge issues with the term (and have for quite a long time - "IONA" is 27 years old now - air brushing that out is as much POV as wanting to push it in at every angle. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have determined beyond any reasonable doubt that the term "British" Isles is controversial, rejected and inaccurate - isn't it time to start discussing the alternatives? (If we must have such an article). The "British Isles and Ireland" is definitely the best of those in common usage. (IONA might also be accurate and not an offensive POV, but the term simply isn't used). Regards (Sarah777 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Feel free to go play here: Great Britain and Ireland. This article isn't going anywhere. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lo - why have you put the tag back in? The opening paragraph gives the definition of the BI and states there is a controversy, and links to more detail on that controversy - what's not neutral about that? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Google "Map of Europe"

In another vein, I Googled "map of Europe", and I checked all the maps on Google's first page, about 14. Well, there is no mention of the term "British Isles" on any of those maps. The term is not so widespread as the article states, or as some editors believe. See here [7], Gold♣heart 22:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be more indicative of the type of maps that search brings up - mostly they show strictly cities and nation states. Only one mentions England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales isn't on any. I don't think a map search necessarilly indicates how widespread the term is.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

NI, England, Scotland and Wales are not states in the strict sense of the usage of the word. The United Kingdom covers all 4 areas. It was more interesting in the fact that the the term BI was not used on any of them. They cannot be dismissed as being unrepresentative of "world usage". Gold♣heart 22:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A case of GIGO at best and Straw man at worst, I'm afraid. Some of those maps list only country names; why would the creator, tasked with making such a map, be expected to additionally list island groupings if it would serve no purpose on the job at hand. [8] (1.3 million hits) - and even [9] (33,000) hits - demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the term absolutely is widespread. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh - not to mention these 29,000... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GoldHeart, my point was that the aim of the cartographers was obviously not to point out terms in "world usage" - just to show cities and countries. By that logic I can prove that the term "West Indies" isn't widely recognised - look: [10] --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also works for Scandinavia.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Who on earth uses the term "West Indies" nowadays. I'd certainly like to meet them if only for amusement. How quaint! Gold♣heart 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just about every journalist and commentator talking about the recent Cricket World Cup? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yuh, huh. Cricket. Its also a very different kettle of fist: West Indians do not have a history of rule from India. West Britons on the other hand ... --sony-youth^pléigh 10:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The term is not in very wide use. (To be honest, where I am in Holland, and this will kill my fellow compatriots, but the whole region is called "England"). But if there is a term for the region is used, and it stings me to admit, its most commonly called, "the Br*tish Ises." (And as Lo2u points out, none of those maps say Scandinavia, yet we know that that exits, don't we?) --sony-youth^pléigh 23:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Shocking! But sure you can get your own back by referring to the Netherlands as Holland ;-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought they would too, but they're happy to walk around in "Holland" T-shirts and see no difference between the two. On the other hand, remark to a Belgian that they are in the Low Countries and you may well be taking you life into your own hands - or more likely putting it in theirs. (The Dutch too, that I've met, are a little miffed that the English is the Netherlands - plural, lit:Low Countries - not Netherland - singurlar, lit:Low Country - as in Dutch.) Maybe a similar historical situation vis-a-vis Ireland and the British Isles? --sony-youth^pléigh 23:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, people the world over must really be quite similar. I've just been hit by an odd sense of deja vu - I noticed earlier the Balkans was another one that doesn't turn up on the Google map search. Over on that talk page there's an argument about whether the term's offensive to Slovenians and a debate over renaming it to Southeastern Europe... (remind you of anything?) Here's something else you can prove with Google: the number of hits for "British Isles" is greater than the combined totals for "British Isles and Ireland" and "Britain and Ireland" and, dear me, it's even greater than hits for "Great Britain". But no, it really doesn't prove anything.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And France gets almost a billion hits, a multiple of British Isles. I do believe that a lot of those BI hits are mirrors of WP,) Gold♣heart 23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not if you exclude the word "wikipedia" Great Britain -wikipedia"British Isles" -wikipedia. But searching for that I found www.the-british-isles.com, which apparant consists of England, Scotland and Wales! Any chance we could site those people? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They also appear to think that Chester is in Wales. Perhaps we could start an argument on the Chester article, citing this as a source. TharkunColl 00:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

We need more people like these. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is Scandinavia anyway? beats me, LOL. And that's why your Dutch neighbours call the whole shebang England. The maps do mention the Faroe Isles and the Shetland Isles. Really, I am afraid that some are missing my whole point. I am pointing to what is there, it's not something made up, and it does reflect "world usage". My only intention was to advance the article. Gold♣heart 23:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Also, not wanting to stir stuff - we maybe should take stock. Exactly how relevant is this concept to other people? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How relevant is what concept?? (Sarah777 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I think the whole issue from this section, springs from the term being avoided. The point here is that it is not commonly used in the broad world. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that it is not commonly used in Ireland. Gold♣heart 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But some editors in the British Isle across the sea seem to think the broad world IS Britain. Like Britain, America and a few hangers-on become "the international community" when they want to invade somewhere! (Sarah777 00:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Its easily avoided, if its not a relevant concept. Hence, also, maybe, the awkwardness around its use in East-West strands of the NI process. Maybe, this is only really becoming an issue now "down here", because we never had to think about it before. Its easy to go through your life never saying it, if you never had to say it. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I imagine most people see the British Isles as one of those regions, like Scandinavia or the Balkans, and they never really have to think to carefully about what's actually included because they care very little - I doubt the compilers of Britannica or the OED had the problems we had when trying to decide whether to include the Channel Islands. Anyway this is all very interesting and it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, most people would be happy with the "controversial" wording being replaced with "not commonly used in Ireland" or words to that effect. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sarah, just noticed your comment above - the "hold on" one. I took it from this "As Goldheart says; it isn't 'controversial' in Ireland in the sense that it is hardly ever used!" that you agreed the term wasn't ideal - and my rewording does reflect what you say. Controversial may not be inaccurate but would you be happy with this wording, as an alternative?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah to a point. I did state that the term was objectional in relation to Ireland's inclusion. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Gold♣heart 14:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. "Especially in Ireland" gets over my objection that simply "in Ireland" implies it is universally accepted everywhere else. Your edit is fine; only wish I could say the same for the article title!

Ooops. I read the current version and thought it fine; you wish to remove the word controversial; it is! It causes controversy any time it is used in Ireland - as pointed out; not politician would dare use the term. (Sarah777 13:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Except the ones who do use it, such as Sile de Valera. Oh well, one must never let a few facts get in the way of a good nationalistic POV! TharkunColl 15:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Did use it. And look what happened to her. (Sarah777 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I must have missed something - what happened to her? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with "not commonly used/controversial/many object in Ireland". I'm far less happy with this simple "it's controversial" statement. If some people in Britain or elsewhere in the world find it objectionable, they're such a small minority that their position should be reported as such. The term only really causes controversy in Ireland. The statement now is giving the impression that people the world over avoid the use - and whether they should or shouldn't they don't.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's controversial if one includes Ireland, as many Irish people see the term BI either as "Britain and its islands" (or as simply "archaic"), which is the natural interpretation implicit in the term. Otherwise the opening paragraph is in peril of becoming very long, that's if everything is explained. Gold♣heart 17:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No Lo. It's controversial and offensive in the area it claims to include! Can't have it both ways. It is controversial in the "British Isles". The only way make it not controversial in he area it claims to describe is to remove Ireland from the area. (Sarah777 18:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Of course, we could, if we feel it necessary to go into the geography of the controversy, expand the opening into a broader discussion of wny and where in the area described the term is offensive. I'd agree with that. I'd even help to write it. (Sarah777 18:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Why bother - there's already such an article. Where this whole debate belongs. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say that's it's mainly controversial in a Wikipedia talk page. TharkunColl 18:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good idea - but we would have to say that the only reason it is controversial on Wikipedia is because UK-based editors persist in denying that issues exist with the term, or attempt to negate those issues. There is no controversy in the real world because people simply accept that an issue exists with the name, point it out gracefully, and get on with their lives. See this this discussion in the NI Assembly for an example of how people just accept that there is a problem with the name, then move on. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that some editors with a nationalist agenda want to change the language in order to reflect their opinions. This is both impossible and absurd. And politicians can't change it either, no matter how much they might try. TharkunColl 18:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell me about it! As I said, "denying that issues exist with the term, or attempt to negate those issues." Nationalism really gets my gut. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bastun, you have called me a troll and veered very close to breaching WP:NPA several times in this discussion. Please note that my patience isn't limitless. The real problem is the failure of some editors with a British Nationalist agenda refuse to accept the fact the Ireland isn't British. A very interesting extract Sony; it appears that in NI at least the Unionists have no interest in trying to impose the term "British Isles" even on their fellow Britons in NI! It speaks volume that some editors here are more intransigent than Mr Paisley and his Party. (Sarah777 19:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

DO NOT strike out my comments. This is typical of the sort of arrogance that causes these disputes. Bastun accused my of being a troll yesterday - which isn't several days ago by my system of counting.

Let's be absolutely clear - I'm accusing you (SARAH777) of trolling, not anyone else. Much as you may hate it, the British Isles are not "imaginary". They are described as such by people in Britain, Ireland and elsewhere around the world. Noone will be changing the name of the article, or deleting it. Goodnight. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC) - Is that clear enough?

(Sarah777 20:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Please give it a rest. We were all doing so well - not an angry word said for several days. Nobody's trying to impose the term "British" - it's just a definition. Gold♣heart, the term does include Ireland - there's no doubt about that. The paragraph doesn't need to be long. Just needs to have two words added to say "controversial in Ireland", that's all - nothing anyone's said explains what the problem is with that.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it does, Sarah. And note that my patience isn't limitless, either. You've sailed very close to breaking WP:TALK guidelines many times - we are not interested in how much you hate the term or how inappropriate you think it is. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you think I've a British nationalist agenda, you're very much mistaken. And Ireland isn't British - I've never implied it was and certainly don't think it is. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

May I quote from WP:NPA;

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to point out politely that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the editor.

I believe that PAs should be removed
Gold♣heart 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in what I wrote above that is a personal attack. Do not edit my comments. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 19:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bastun; accusing me of being a troll IS a personal attack. Fact. (Sarah777 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

I was referring to my comment of 19:30, 27 May 2007 above, which, like yours, was also given strikethrough tags. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

I see the dispute tag is back. Can it be explained clearly and precisely this time, what exactly is being "disputed"? Everything? Nothing? A sentence? A word? A comma? A spelling? What? Exactly. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What is disputed by me who placed it first is that there is not only a focus on the naming controversy in the opening but it is an overly long focus on an issue that should only be treated in the body of the article, SqueakBox 19:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see a single sentence (the second one in the article) and a 3-sentense paragraph at the end of the "Names of the islands through the ages" section. Are we looking at the same version? I believe the second sentence is legitimate and does not over state the matter. If the title of an article is politically sensitive, I think it noteworthy to mention from the off-set and then move on. I believe the whole "Names of the islands through the ages" is nationalist posturing and should be scrapped or moved to an article of its own. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry sony, what is nationalist posturing? If the content is historically accurate it can't be posturing. If it is not historically accurate, it should be edited. 81.32.184.207 13:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The last time I looked at it, as with any great orgy of nationalism posturing, it didn't tell a single mistruth (as far as I know) - but do we really need the entire British Isles naming dispute played-out live for our readers entertainment? As collaborative performance art, its an interesting piece. For an encyclopedia, its unsightly. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's true, but inappropriate because it's in line with some particular view? Now that's an odd thing to say about content in an Encyclopedia! I found it absolutely fascinating, having long thought that the name was indeed traditional. The most interesting was that the man who coined the phrase had to explain it and justify it to his readers, although I'm not sure if that's in the article or only somewhere on the talk page. I hope you don't use the same logic to go onto the evolution pages and argue that presentation of the history of the theory of evolution is inappropriate because it constitutes "secular posturing". 81.32.184.207 19:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"So it's true, but inappropriate because it's in line with some particular view?" - I honestly don't know how you could have read that interpretation from my post above. I don't think it represents any particular view more than the other, which is part of my problem with it. Both views are given the same space to flex their muscles without merit based on the facts or NPOV. When I say "nationalist" posturing, do you think I mean "Irish nationalist" posturing? In fact, I don't. The section takes up 40% of the article and its history is one of two sides warring with each other to outdo each other with references. The result is that what is interesting and truthful about the origin of the term (or as the section is called now names of the islands through the ages), I feel, gets lost in the clash between opposing points of view (e.g. why the section on "Oceani insulae"? Because it has to counter balance the section on "Pretanic Islands"). My greatest concern is that the narrative (leaving aside the name of the section!), by starting with a lengthy discussion of Pretanic Islands, begs the question that its current form is an ancient term (or traditional as you call it). As you have probably seen, I'm proposing to merge the section as it is into the 'dispute page' (or a page of its own - actually my first choice) and trim the section here down to what is relevant to "British Isles". See my proposal for a rewrite here, now in [Archive_11#Origins_of_the_term archive 11] along with a discussion about these issues and other suggestions for rewrites. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies Sony, I guess I did interpret the comment as being "Irish Nationalist". In the rather passioned debate on these pages I perceived that there was a certain vocabulary in place, e.g. Nationalist=Irish Nationalist=Republican=quasi terrorist, while British=Imperialist=quasi-fascist. My mistake! The section on history of names is too long, and chunks of it are not directly relevant, but it's certainly highly interesting. The section title is somewhat cumbersome too, but that's a minor issue. 81.32.184.207 09:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony, I think your reaction to an attempt to solve this problem by writing an article that doesn't reflect British pov rather ruins your argument in this matter. This isn't being neutral between two competing nationalisms; it's an argument between a NEUTRAL POV and a British pov. Nobody is suggesting we call IONA the "Irish Isles", are they? (Sarah777 20:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

It was the universal decision for both British and Irish editors to remove the article you created as a WP:POVFORK/WP:POINT. Let it go. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Define "universal"?! More than 4 out of 7,000,000,000 I'd have thought! This happened in a kangaroo court, without my knowledge, in the space of two hours! We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice. (Sarah777 22:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Tiocfaidh ár h-eagarthóireacht! --sony-youth^pléigh 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stick to the rules - this is the discussion page for the "British Isles" article. If you want to chat privately, then use your own talk pages. Thanks. Bazza 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

---

(Written before Squeak wrote): Yes. The reason for the existence of the tag in the first place was that the article begins with a health warning basically saying it's a controversial term. People went backwards and forwards adding and removing the words "sometimes". That's why the tag was put there. It was never discussed and someone (Bastun maybe?) removed it. I wasn't too bothered because it seemed we were heading towards consensus. However keeping the wording you like and removing the tag is rather a questionably thing to do. Now we're back to discussing the same thing. I think the sentence is completely unbalanced in that it exaggerates the extent of controversy and so do others.

(in response to Sq): I agree there's too much balance one way but I think an explanation of the reasons gives people the opportunity to make up their own minds. An article that is basically beginning "British Isles is a controversial term" is a long way outside a NPOV.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland being the second biggest island of the archipelago and therefore the controversy bit is of utmost importance to the intro. Also the history of the term dictates a "political question markk" over the whole concept of the BI term. Gold♣heart 19:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Its only some on that island who oppose the term and there are 15 UK people for every one ROI person, as stated earlier by Tharkun, SqueakBox 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay solution! Write that Ireland is included by some. Gold♣heart 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold heart, what's the problem? - I'm not talking about taking it out of the intro? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand your question.Gold♣heart 19:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflct, reply to Lo2u) "sometimes controversial" is a ridiculous statement. What does it mean? It controversial between the months of July and Novemeber? Between 4 in the afternoon and eleven thirty at night? something is either controversial or not. if that controversy is temporal in nature, only then is it sometimes controversial.

As for having it mention of it in the second sentence - why not? would you prefer to bury it? where would you put? If it is not the second sentense then "Some common uncertainties as to what is included ..." will be. That sentence is unsourced and untrue. The term "British Isles" is politically sensitive in the British Isles. We are agreed on that? Our readers should be informed of that caveat but not burdened with it. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Every proper definition we have includes Ireland. It's there and changing that is out of the question - I don't know why that's even bing discussed. Some people in Ireland object not to what's included but to the existence of the term. People in the rest of the world don't care.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That Ireland is included in the archipelago is never (except on Wikipedia) disputed. What is objected to is solely the name of the archipelago. Stick to the topic. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sony. Can't make any sense of that. Think it's because we've all got to type so fast. :-

)I'm taking a break.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it it was a flurry of edit conflicts, alright. Take a cool off. So will I. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Sony Youth - I've never advocated "sometimes controversial". --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why I asked you to state "exactly" what was being disputed. So the issue is that it is "unbalaced"? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason GoldH is finding problems with "controversial in Ireland" - what I'm suggesting - is that he disputes Ireland is included and wants it to say "controversial when it includes Ireland and controversial for different reasons if it doesn't" and (s)he has realised that will make things very complicated. It's a prob that doesn't exist.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't propose changing anything, many people from Ireland would disagree with your analysis. The article, without fear of favour should state the interpretation of the term. That's all. Gold♣heart 20:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ireland is included in "these islands." "These islands" is a euphemism for the Br*tish Isles. Any other interpretation would be a neologism or an exploitation of misuse of the term elsewhere. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Sony, I broadly concur. Gold♣heart 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So what is disputed? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ask LO2U! Gold♣heart 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not just LO2. I put the tag on and it was removed so I reverted and replaced it and now LO2 has put it back. It needs to be left on till the dispute is resolved, SqueakBox 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is what I find controversial "The term is controversial — especially in Ireland — and its use is avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.[2] Some common uncertainties as to what is included in the group are discussed in British Isles (terminology) and in the History section below." We should remove it or move it lower down and replace it with some info on the samller islands which i would find much more intereesting and believe our readers would to, SqueakBox 20:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to compromise. If we bulk up the first paragraph with a description of the area (essentially move sentence #3 to #2 and expand it to three/four/five sentences in length). The have a quick ref to the controversey at the end of a longer first para. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well do try but please let someone elkse remove the tag (ie one of those who placed it), SqueakBox 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sony - "These islands" is not a euphemism for "British Isles" - it is an Alternative Name; because the term "British Isles" is politically inspired POV. Agree with you that qualifying the term "controversial" is baloney. And "controversial" that name is; in a large part of the area that some claim the term includes. No escaping that fact. (Sarah777 20:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

If I told someone I came from "These Islands" would the natural question not be, "Which ones?" Unless the 'name' becomes "Those Islands" when you are away from them. Conjugating nouns in English - argh! Name/euphamism, you get my drift. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I my experience we use the term as a euphemism for "Ireland & Britain" (Sarah777 20:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

British Isles is a common usage term not a POV term, SqueakBox 20:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No-one ever says they "come from the British Isles"! Do they? 86.42.186.254 20:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Not unless they were very f*ing fat. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL 20:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a re-jig. If this is acceptable, I think the second para should be moved down to form part of the "Political co-operation within the islands" section. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Good jigging Sony! (Sarah777 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC))

Thanks. It's a lot better than it was now that that doesn't begin the article. One thing, the idea that the term is avoided in discussions between the two governments isn't in those footnotes and may not even be true - if nobody minds I'm going to replace it with "use of the term has been rejected by the government of the Republic of Ireland." or something along those lines - which I think is what the thing once said.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark it with {{fact}} if you don't mind. I'll get some sources, but it could a bit to get good ones - simple because it is just avoided without making a big deal out of it (deliberately). --sony-youth^pléigh 22:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done it. I removed because I suspected the person who wrote it probably read through all those sources and then summarised rather inaccurately but a ref is much better--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Deindent). There was such a reference in the article until quite recently - maybe a month or so ago? IIRC, it was an extract from a Dáil debate. The revised opening paragraph reads fine to me - but again IIRC, the reason the whole controversy bit was moved to the second sentence originally was become some editors insisted it was important enough to warrant early inclusion. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still one of those editors, but I'm as happy with a clear mention at the end of the first para and then forget about it then to be squeezing it into the second sentence and disrupting the show. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this article can never be satisfactory in its present format, now matter how much jigging is done to it. The article should be trimmed and is pretty much a fork. Have a look at the West Indies article and compare the two. - Gold♣heart 12:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Another piece of POV uncovered. The islands are also called the West European Isles in Ireland. Well that redirects to "British Isles". Then there is no mention of West European Isles on the BI page. Surely if the article was doing its work, the WEI should be mentioned too. Gold♣heart 12:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gold. I also notice that the "West Indies" article has a naming issue as well! Only they don't try to hide or downplay it. It has a section all to itself near the top. AND the colonial "West Indies" redirects to "Carribean". (Sarah777 12:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Are you referring to the British West Indies which remains an article? But out of interest, is this discussion going anywhere? The term "British Isles" exists and Wikipedia should explain it. Do you have a proposal for moving it, if so, what is it? MarkThomas 13:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

British West Indies, another nice tidy little article, unlike the BI article. The BI article is POV-ridden, in its format and in its content that it should be wiped, and then use the West Indies article as a template to start all over again. Gold♣heart 13:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should list all the things in it you regard as POV first so we can have an informed discussion. Personally I think there is a lot of interesting material in the article that I wouldn't want to see removed from Wikipedia. However, I suspect the real problem some editors have here is that they don't believe there is any shared history or culture between Britain and Ireland, something I regard as an extreme view. Clearly the histories and cultures are intertwined and it's good to have a page that examines that in detail, as this one does, regardless of what it's called. True that the name "British Isles" is contested and pro-British, but that's been a widely used name up to recent times. Perhaps a more enlightened and widely-agreed name will emerge, in which case Wikipedia should mention that as well. At present there does not appear to be general agreement on a new name. MarkThomas 14:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The shared history/culture point is a good one. But so too is there a danger of presenting the mere 122-year period (which was contested throughout) of a single state across the islands as the "natural" set-up. My personal peeves right now are two-fold:

1. The narative of the history section appears as a chronology of "state-building" - it may as well read as a history of the development and expansion (and eventual retraction) of the United Kingdom. I would prefer a more thematic approach.
2. "Names of the islands through the ages" section is (in my opinion) a POV rant delivered in order to justify UK-based national origin myths. While its interesting, for the purposes of this article it should be trimmed down and the forked to a seperate article where it might get a more neutral treatment.

With regard to the name. I would be dubious about adding "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or "West European Isles", without specific assurances that they would not find their way to being portrayed 'better' or 'equally common' (within the article) to "British Isles". The would need to be marked out as rare and exceptional words. The same with "these isles," which is a very common references. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• (reduce indent)- As far as Ireland is concerned, the islands were disastrously (for Ireland anyway) united for 120 years, but the article has a one-nation thrust in its approach. It would be interesting to have the views of Scottish and Welsh editors too regarding the presentation of the article. Mention of the alternate names should be more prominent, and get its own paragraph near the top. History section, especially its detail appears unnecessary. The article just seems too long. They are my views. Gold♣heart 15:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re West European Isles: it gives only 15 results on google and only one that's not part of a discussion of alternative names for the British Isles. It's basically an obscure neologism and I don't think it warrants anything but the most cursory mention.[11]--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well usually people say Scotland, Wales, England or Ireland. West European Isles is more an Irish language thing, and Irish people don't use it that much either unless they are speaking Gaeilge, it's just usually plain "Britain and Ireland" or visa versa. Getting away from the haggle and the argument, these alternates deserve to be mentioned. Prob about this BI page, there is a lot of oneupmanship being drawn upon, and it will never resolve the article. Gold♣heart 17:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And if there were evidence that Irish people were saying "West European Isles" I'd say include it - the number of results on Google makes it seem like no-one is.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Scottish editor here (but a nationalist one)I understand people keep saying that it is geographical term but the word British is synonymous with the UK, the term is decrepit --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The words "American" and "America" are sometimes seen as synonymous with the USA, yet you don't find all the other countries within the continents of North America and South America striving for a change of name of their continents. Similarly, "Europe" is often used as shorthand for the European Union, yet again you don't find all the countries and states outside of the EU calling for the name of the continent to be changed. Why should "Britain"/"British" be any different? Waggers 10:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

British is very much different from European due to the UKs history in Ireland suppression, rebellion ect ect. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 20:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the UK is a political entity named after the land it occupies. In that, the term "British" is no different to "American" or "European". In 1812, the USA declared war on the UK and Canada in an attempt to effectively obliterate Canada from the map. Yet the land occupied by the USA and Canada is still called North America and nobody disputes it. So the fact that there has been political anguish and bloodshed need not have any effect on what the land mass is called. Waggers 21:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The British situation goes back far further than the American one there is far more hostitily to the term --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC).

A Better Name, A Better Article

This section is clearly to do with the name of the article, and so can now be found on The name debate talk page. Waggers 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Improving the Article

No, it is clearly about improving the article - as I stated. Please refrain from confusing your POV with FACT. (Sarah777 12:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Sarah, are you now arguing with youself? :)) --sony-youth^pléigh 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge from The_British_Isles_and_Ireland

I notice a new article has been created by User:Sarah777 as a blatant attempt to circumvent not getting her way on this article, The_British_Isles_and_Ireland. I've suggested they are merged in here otherwise it is confusing in the extreme. Ben W Bell talk 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This section is clearly to do with The_British_Isles_and_Ireland and so can now be found on Talk:The British Isles and Ireland (Sarah777 16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Note: If your comment refers to the article The British Isles and Ireland please post them at Talk:The British Isles and Ireland, which is the appropriate page for discussing the article.

No, that's wrong. Read WP:MERGE. You'll see that merge discussions should take place at the proposed destination of the merge, not the source. Waggers 19:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Waggers - I have read the policy and it seems to me, that given the title of my article is less offensive and superior in many respects (though "Britain and Ireland" might be better) - that I should propose that the "British Isles" article be merged into The British Isles and Ireland. Should I do this now or wait till the result of this debate? (There isn't much guidance on this in the policy).

(Of course there would have to be significant edits to remove POV from the British version; but that can be done).

Regards (Sarah777 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You know this isn't the superior and best merge, that is obvious from the opposition to the page. Ben W Bell talk 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Remember, Sarah: those elements of "British Isles and Ireland" that do not reflect the consensus of this page are invalid for merger and will simply be deleted. See WP:GAME - you cannot use the rules of Wikipedia to disrupt Wikipedia. Boo hoo! --sony-youth^pléigh 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems it's academic now anyway since BI&I has been redirected to BI under AfD. Please don't go against consensus. Ben W Bell talk 20:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Snowballs chance in hell," apparently. Awww! Hope the damage caused was worth it. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a merger process. Please do NOT breach it. I have reverted the redirect as vandalism; further vandalism will be reverted as the 3RR does not apply, obviously. Until we get a range of opinion representative of the history of this issue the new article stays. It is a compromise solution to a serious problem. The policy is clear:

"After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." (Sarah777 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

The merger process was changed by myself to a AfD process, as is more correct with a POV Fork. The AfD has been carried out and a consensus was very quickly reached. The article was redirected as the results of that AfD. As a result do not remove the redirection or you may be blocked in violation of the AfD process. Ben W Bell talk 20:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Disruption caused by (juvenile) attempt to push POV through creaton of alternate page hoping it would have to be merged?

I would like to know what other contributors to this page think of the failed attempt to push POV on this article through the creation of another article, which was then attempted to be merged here. Should sanctions be brought against the editor responsible?

I personally am appalled with the disruption caused. I had prepared a RfC on the responsible editor before, due to her behavior on the Ireland and Republic of Ireland pages, but had dropped it there. Her arrival here was something I saw with dread. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it as Sarah777 is a good editor on many topics, just nothing political. In these articles Sarah777 has on many occasions said practically flat out that she'd ignore policies and consensus and this seems to be happening again (though she hasn't said that of late to my knowledge). The disruption she has caused to this article, the absolute refusal to go with consensus, the refusal to provide any of the requested references for her claims and disruption such as this latest scheme go against the project as a whole. As I said she does provide much value editing on roads and towns in Ireland, but once anything political comes up her colours are worn (proudly) on her sleeve. I think that on these matters her POV and Irish Nationalism does more harm than good. Yes it's good to see views from all parts of the political spectrum, but we need reasonable editors who are open to persuasion and civil discussion. Editors who when they make a claim can back it up, remember verifiability is necessary for everything. I think maybe an RfC should be opened or we may unfortunately have more disruption in the future, much as it pains me to say it. Ben W Bell talk 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see Sarah's an excellent editor when it comes to Irish geography pages. On this page she's causing disruption for her own political reasons (not just this time - there've been frequent personal attacks and outbursts of anger). I'm sorry, I do think it's a case for RfC.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. This not what WP is about. One editor created a page, and several editors got very upset about that fact. Now it's over, and we should move on. Gold♣heart 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a break

As an outsider looking in... Everyone here needs to take a few days break from this article/issue. In reality it's a non-issue and not worth the hassle it's stirring up. Take a break and look at it again with a fresh mind. /wangi 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Very good idea! I agree (Sarah777 20:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Breach of Due Process by Several Editors

There is a merger process. Please do NOT breach it. I have reverted the redirect as vandalism; further vandalism will be reverted as the 3RR does not apply, obviously. Until we get a range of opinion representative of the history of this issue the new article stays. It is a compromise solution to a serious problem. The policy is clear: "After proposing the merger, place your reasons on the talk page. You may be able to invoke a response by contacting some of the major or most-recent contributors via their respective talk-pages. If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus (at least 5 days) or silence (at least 10 days), proceed with the merger." (Sarah777 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

My comments above were ignored by Ben. W. Bell who deleted the article illegally, as per Wiki policy.

The redirect/deletion did not follow Wiki procedure. I have restored the article, using "Britain and Ireland", by far the most common term for the area described in Ireland. Please do not remove it without following the correct procedures; not least being the chance to invole the very many other who have expressed their objection to this name and the high-handed actions of several editors. (Sarah777 23:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

In answer to the "allegations" against me above. I set up the merger process, I then changed it to an AfD process as is mroe correct for a deliberate POV Fork. The AfD was carried out, all I did was set it up. It was decided to end it under WP:SNOW, I had nothing to do with that decision. It was redirected as a result of the AfD, again I had nothing to do with that. So accusing me of deleting an article deliberately is accusing me of something I did not do, procedure was followed and if you cannot accept that then I can't help that. All that being said I do agree that the AfD was probably closed somewhat prematurely and have no problem with it going to WP:DRV. As for the last paragraph of Sarah777's comments above, the article was done under AfD, you cannot decide to ignore that and recreate it elsewhere, that is pure contempt for the project. The recreated page will be redirected as yet another POV Fork and set back to how the article was as per the results of the AfD. Don't like the AfD go through channels, don't set off to re-do the damage yet again. Incidentally the recreation of the article under the name Britain and Ireland isn't the same as British Isles yet the article made it out to be, Britain and Ireland are simply two islands. Also ever instance of "Britain an Ireland" on net searches don't mean the same thing as "British Isles", often they simply mean Great Britain and Ireland or the two governments of the UK an Ireland so even number searches on that term aren't an indicator of its use as it isn't a name or phrase the same was as British Isles. Ben W Bell talk 06:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I was dealing with what I thought was a "merger" proposal and was unaware that it had changed to AfD. So when I saw the deletions I assumed it was simple vandalism with someone (initially you) "taking the law into their own hands". I therefore sincerely believed I was reverting vandalism; and in no danger of 3RR. (Despite what some think I very rarely get involved in edit wars and tend to keep my views to the talkpages). While I was in prison I reviewed events and concluded you acted properly throughout this episode and apologise for suggesting otherwise. Still Best friends?? Regards (Sarah777 06:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

It just doesn't make sense. Even if by British Isles you are claiming to mean British Islands (note that it already has its own term, as a legal construct), then you are still not comparing like with like. "British Isles [sic - read British Islands] and Ireland" excludes a whole load of islands that are not in the UK but are also not part of the island of Ireland. TharkunColl 23:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with WP rules in this regard, but there is a framework for questioned deletions. Page Wikipedia:Deletion review might help out here. Gold♣heart 23:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV, deletion review, SqueakBox 23:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DRV is for articles deleted after due process, with a variety of opinions (even if one is in a minority) - it is not meant for deletions that are illegitimate and thus constitute vandalism. (Sarah777 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

You are wrong, DRV is exactly for what are considered to be out of process deletions. Vandals cant delete pages only admins can, SqueakBox 23:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this page was blanked and redirected. Any vandal can do that. (Sarah777 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

What happened to that break you were going to take, Sarah? Waggers 08:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, the decision was WP:SNOW. Bye bye, POV fork rubbish. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of deleted article at new location

The article Britain and Ireland used to redirect to Great_Britain_and_Ireland. Sarah777 has just created a very similar page to the old one at that location.[12]--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes I suppose that deletion didn't follow procedure but could the old debate be opened up rather that a completely new debate (or two new debates) started?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 23:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat all the debate - we can gather it in one place; but I DO want the numerous people who have serious issues down the years to give their opinion on my proposed solution. Please bear in mind that I am not vandalising, harassing or interfering with the "British Isles" article in any way. I am exploring a Third way - but I didn't think that would bring the Though Police rushing at me. (Sarah777 23:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

The Though Police. That is a new one, SqueakBox 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it should be made a bit clearer - because I almost missed your comment about recreation and this is probably where a merge talk would go. No accusations of harrassment, vandalism or interference were intended but I do think the article needs to go per whatever procedure is correct in these circumstances.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with you are the Thought Police? Um, WP:NPA... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not its the though police, SqueakBox 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Anyone who can't argue their case and resorts to bullying, threats and vandalism. (Sarah777 00:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Please do not blank other editor's comments, Sarah. [13] is vandalsim. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I shouldn't of course; but he has repeatedly blanked my article. Still, retaliation is wrong. (Sarah777 00:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Your article? No one owns articles on Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not so happy with this one Ben - you do realise "my article" was merely shorthand for "the new article that I created". (Sarah777 06:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

And will result in action if it persists in the least degree.  RGTraynor  04:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry RGraynor? Whatwill result in action if it continues? it is unclear from the context. (Sarah777 06:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Perfectly clear - follow the indentation. He is referring to blamking other users' comments. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi  RGTraynor  , I am doing some research, on Google and to quote you from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The British Isles and IrelandGoogle hits for "British Isles and Ireland" = 25,000. Google hits for "British Isles" alone = 35 million. The prosecution rests.. Could you please post a link to that page here please. The one that shows "British Isles" at 35 million. Thank you. Gold♥ 11:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gold♥. I'm doing some research on people who ask obnoxious questions with no purpose except to beat the same POV'd drum they've been beating for months regardless if what consensus might be. Would you care to stop making an ass of the valid concerns of Irish contributors to this article by choosing not to run their opinions into the grouds by having it associated with repetive and childish claptrap and pathetic snips at your fellow editors such as the above. Thank you. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sony, firstly your reaction yesterday was strongway way "over the top". And I was very surprised with you. By doing that you set the tone of the ongoing discussions. Now, I am not falling out with you, and I'll still hold respect for you as an editor. It's not in your gift to judge the validity of my question, and neither will I be intimidated by your above rant. That's the way I see it, and if you for one second think that your approach will elicit a personal attack against you, I am afraid that you will be very disappointed. Gold♥ 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

May I add, yesterday was an ugly day, it brought out a certain, let's call it irk, in some of the editors. If I in any way I contributed to that, then I am most sorry, and I know that I have irked some editors. But if that being so, it was never my intention to do so. I voted for that article as a redirect, and I argued the case simply, and that's what the article is now, it's a redirect. If you look at my record on this, I am on the winning side here. Gold♥ 13:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My reaction yesterday was over the top? What happened yesterday was nothing short of an attempt at subversion. I will not allow my work here to be undermined by subversion, be it from Sarah, you, or anyone else. Sarah was yesterday in conversation with you personally regarding that attempt. You did nothing to stop her. You have been, and continue to be, just as vigorous in pressing a hard line onto this talk and just as unwilling to compromise as Sarah. You pursue the supplanting of your POV onto this article through the same MO: repetition, abuse, ridicule, division, misrepresentation, sarcasm, and intolerance and accusation. Sarah was a bully and you are an associate of hers.

I will not tolerate any editor here bullying their views onto consensus. In my opinion, you are guilty by association and through continuing the corrupted work of Sarah here today. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I retract, but your reaction, as an observer to say the least was strong. I voted for a redirect, and a redirect won the day. You voted for delete and you lost. I am afraid that no one has bullied you, you will just have to calm down a bit and realise that there are other views in the world, and WP is a democratic place to be. I have broke no procedure, and I retain the right to express my view on the subject. Also,I have no problem with the page or the term "British Isles", any criticism of mine is of the structure of the article. Gold♥ 15:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Gold; I wouldn't have retracted because what you said was 100% accurate. You do, to your credit, remain heroically polite under attack. This exchange and allegations of "guilt by association" read like manifest intimidation to me. (Sarah777 06:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

You could follow the link I gave in that discussion. (That being said, while I do feel that this is a fringe POV for which the next scrap of supporting evidence will be the very first, and that its two proponents ought to reread WP:CON, outright insults do the atmosphere no good. WP:CIVIL, folks.)  RGTraynor  12:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

But the link gives 1.5million, and not 35million as you said. I thought you may have used a different search engine. Thanks. Gold♥ 12:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

True. I think what happens is that regardless of what URL you enter in the address bar, google checks your IP and returns results based on your presumed location. You and I get google.ie search results (1.5 million) even if the address bar says google.com. RGTraynor gets 35 million using the "real" google.com. Not 100% sure on this, obviously, but I've a couple of friends working in Google Ireland who might be able to confirm or deny. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, that's what I was wondering about, it was more a computer question. Cheers. Gold♥ 13:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple other people (from Irish IP addresses) were reporting similar issues; it's one reason why I checked both google.com and google.ie to see what respective results came up.  RGTraynor  13:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's something that may interest you. When I search google from Britain I only get about 1,500,000 results no matter which google I use and no matter whether or not I tell it to search only Britain. If I type "free web proxy" into google and search via one of those sites, I can increase that total to 41,000,000. It does seem to have something to do with IP address.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Google's an ass for making assumptions from IP addresses. I made a fresh install of Linux (I only note this because it was only Firefox on Linux that this happened to me, everything was installed as English-language versions) and Google insisted that I use Dutch as the language for their services since my IP was in the Netherlands. Even if I went to Google.com/.ie/.co.uk, it would persist in showing in Dutch only. The only way I could get rid of it was to change my language to preferences to Irish - specifying English didn't work! --sony-youth^pléigh 22:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re Google - I notice that if you Google The British Isles the first three results are Wiki (which obviously doesn't count); two of the next three clearly define the BI as the either Great Britain or the UK. (Sarah777 20:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa

I will leave it there now that a link has been provided but it does not translate to the "British Isles". Kind of makes the article look a bit strange to us (basic) Irish speakers is all.--Play Brian Moore 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oileáin Bhreataineacha

I am going to remove 'Oileáin Bhreataineacha' from the article unless someone can find an authoritative source for it. I can't see it in any of the dictionaries or terminology databases. Not that the term actually exists among Irish speakers. It doesn't. And if did it would be 'Oileáin Bhriotanacha'. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 09:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I grabbed it from the terminology article, where it comes with the reference: Tír-Eóluíocht na h-Éireann ('The Geography of Ireland') by T. J. Dunne, translated by Toirdhealbhach Ó Raithbheartaigh. English-Irish dictionary.com gives it as "Na hOileáin bhriontanacha", as you say - but not an authorative source. A more authorative source would be focal.ie which gives "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" as would be more likly used by an Irish speaker.

Take out "Oileáin Bhreataineacha or Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" and put it as "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór or Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa"? --sony-youth^pléigh 09:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I remember that book being brought up here before but it can hardly be said to be an 'authoritative' source. Yes, I too saw 'Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór' on focal.ie. Could you insert that in the text and remove 'Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha', and provide a link to focal.ie please? I'd do it myself but I don't know how to create a link to an external website. Thanks! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 10:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. Once you remove the virgins you get a total of eight results - all of which appear to be Wiki mirrors :-)[14] Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I hardly need to go into the reasons! (Sarah777 10:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Agreed, seems to be nothing to back it up all searches for them all are mirrors of Wikipedia. Ben W Bell talk 10:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear consensus. Can we all be friends again? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)`

Just getting back to the term itself for a minute, I find the Manx version amusing. 'Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh'. 'Goaldagh' here is obviously a cognate of Irish gallda, meaning foreign, alien. So in Mann, Ireland, Great Britain and the surrounding islands are called The Foreign Isles! The English were specifically known as Na Gaill /gi:l/ in the poetry of the 17th and 18th centuries and in folk songs. Similarly in placenames, Na Gaill normally refers to the English or the Normans but also to the Vikings. Baile na nGall in Kerry and Waterford are clearly references to Norse settlements along the coast. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 11:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Another thing. Surely the Manx have a word for British? The Irish term Briotanach is a neologism invented to diffrentiate British from Welshwhich is Breatnach in Irish. I think that speaks volumes about how the indigenous Irish viewed and still view themselves and their relationship with the surrounding countries of northwestern Europe. Irish merely reflects the original meaning of British; a person who speaks P-Celtic as opposed to the Q-Celtic spoken in Ireland. To be British, therefore, was to be Welsh or a speaker of Brittonic Celtic. Perhaps the Manx find the term British Isles as alien and foreign as most Irish people do and have labelled it thus! ;o) An Muimhneach Machnamhach 12:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! The Briotanach/Breatnach distinction is something that really blow the cobwebs of much of the British national myth. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

<edit conflict>Caught me eye too, but not so sure - Gaill definitly is synonymous with foreigner, but surely specifically English/British? Could you really call any other nationality a Gaill? I had read it as a slightly pejorative transliteration of British Isles - kinda, Feckin' Brits' Isles - but maybe its "British" in an even purer sense than Briotanach could achieve. A Manx dictionary gives the following:

Goal: Gaul, Britain

Goal: Gaul (person), lowlander, foreigner

Goaldagh: British, Briton

goaldagh: guest, boarder, lowland, strange, lodger

goaldagh banshey: wedding guest

Goaldaght: non-Gaelic

Ny Goaldee: The British

Whatever, it made me laugh too alright. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting, reminds me about the Gallgaidhill. The connection with speakers of P-Celtic is consistent with the historical info we found earlier, don't forget it was spoken in parts of Ireland as well as Q-Celtic. (perhaps earlier, if O Rahilly was right) As someone who has to read the subtitles on Eorpa, all the translations are gratefully accepted ;) ... dave souza, talk 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ó Dónaill defines gall as follows: 1 (a) Gaul. (b) Northman, Dane. (c) Norman, Anglo-Norman, Englishman. 2. Foreigner. And Ó Duinnín has "A foreigner; applied in succession to Gauls, Franks, Danes, Normans agus English; also a Protestant." There is also a text in the form of a pseudohistory called Cogadh Gaedheal re Gallaibh ('The War of the Gaels and Galls') written a number of centuries ago in which the Irish fight and see off various foreign invaders, none of which are English, if I remember correctly. The fact that Baile na nGall in Waterford is a stone's throw from the headland of Helvick and Baile na nGall in Kerry lies on the shore of Smerwick Harbour, strongly suggests that both places were settled by the Vikings. The linguist Heinrich Wagner concurs with this in his Linguistic Atlas and Survey of Irish Dialects (LASID). He translates Baile na nGall as village of the foreigners. I, too, suspected Ny hEllanyn Goaldagh to be a sort of tongue-in-cheek dig at the the 'British Isles Brigade', though I doubt it. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 13:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave, as for P-Celtic being spoken in Ireland, I think that is still a matter of conjecture and many scholars would disagree. Either way, it tells us nothing about what the indigenous Irish actually called themselves, be it in Q-Celtic or indeed P-Celtic, if it was spoken here nor does it tell us whether the natives viewed themselves as being at one culturally with the surrounding countries and having a term similar to British Isles. Another thing, Gallgaidhil should be Gallghàidhill. Eòrpa would be a Scottish Gaelic current affairs programme? Am I right? Would you believe, RTÉ once aired Eòrpa on television here in Ireland about ten years ago with English subtitles. They then went on to make their own Irish version of it, except somebody forgot to mention to them that Europe in Irish is An Eoraip and not Eòrpa! An Muimhneach Machnamhach 13:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, all history from that era is pretty conjectural. Just that the scholars I'd come across seemed consistently to associate the Cruithne (people) with P-Celtic, though I can see that article needs attention, and to question if the people of that time had any identity larger than the tribal. Since I don't have the Gaelic or speak Galwegian the question of accents on "Gallghàidhill" is beyond me, but would appreciate it if you could have a look at whether the Galloway article needs that corrected. Eorpa (as the BBC shows it on their website) is indeed the "European current affairs magazine", at 7.30 on Thursdays after "De A-Nis?" and "Suas Gu Deas" – you can tell I had to check it's still on, as it's a while since I've watched it. Maybe the BBC can't do accents on their programme pages, and perhaps RTÉ thought the title sounded snappier, or something. Do I gather that it's not kept going in the same way as the Gaelic programme? .. dave souza, talk 21:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is my first chance in over a week to respond. My apologies! As for "Gallghàidhill", I am almost sure that this should be the correct spelling. Unfortunately, I don't have a Scottish Gaelic dictionary here in work but I can look it up when I go home this evening. The name for the language itself in Scottish Gaelic is 'Gàidhlig'. Of that I'm certain. Similarly the Highlands are 'A' Ghàidhealtachd'. Irish has a rule whereby the initial consonant of the second element in a compound word is lenited, hence Gall + Gàidheal = Gallghàidheal. Since both Irish and Scottish Gaelic are Goidelic languages, I'm almost sure the same rule applies in Scotland. In Irish we spell it as 'Gall-Ghael' (prestandardised spelling 'Gall-Ghaedheal'). As for Eòrpa, RTÉ showed it for one or two seasons and then dropped it. This was back in the old days before the Irish language television channel TG4 was founded. An Muimhneach Machnamhach 10:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oxymoronic label?

The British Isles talkpage is not a forum for a "general discussion of British Isles."!! - says the latest box above. So what is it for; discussing the weather? The notion that the talkpage isn't about discussing the article must make this a fairly unique place on Wiki! (Sarah777 13:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

• Seems a good instruction to me. "General discussion of the British Isles" is not what this talk page is for (as the link to WP:NOT#FORUM). It is for discussion about improving this British Isles article. But glances through the archive will show that on many occasions that is not what discussion has been about. Bazza 13:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Baz, if the problem is people are NOT discussing the article how is a label telling them not to discuss it going to help! (Sarah777 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

... and it arrived right after I made a completely forum-like post this morning (diff). --sony-youth^pléigh 14:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Should be removed! Absolutely no call for it, and should be promptly removed. It only serves to deter editors from making an input, and can only damage the project. Unless there is a worthy reasoning proffered for its retention, then I will do that after 24 hours. Gold♥ 16:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason is obvious to me ... all talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article in question not for discussing the subject itself, this is the wp way. Abtract 17:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And how does one separate discussion of the subject from discussion of article about the subject?! Not so obvious to me. Reading hundreds of talkpages I find such distinctions don't naturally occur. (Sarah777 17:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Agree with the banner's retention. On this article, at least, its a necessary reminder. We've pages and pages of people expressing opinions, likes and dislikes about the BI, Britain, Ireland which have no bearing on the article. That's fine for Usenet or some other forum, not for a page supposed to be specifically about improving the article. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 18:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are all aware of how the article could be best improved. Not discussing it won't help. (Sarah777 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

The banner is simply a statement of Wikipedia policy, and based on recent events here I believe it's sorely needed. Unless there's a good reason for removing it, it should stay. If there is a good reason for removing it, I suggest that this is mentioned at Template talk:notaforum as clearly such reasoning will probably be applicable to other articles. If you don't like the fact that talk pages are not for general discussion, perhaps it may be worth raising that at WT:NOT as this is official policy.

Sony, I promise it was a pure coincidence that I added the banner after your post. I'd been looking for something like {{notaforum}} for some time and happened to come across it just after your edit. Honest! Waggers 10:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay Waggers, it's not the most convivial introduction to a talk page. That being said, on a medium term basis it should be removed. Maybe leave it for a couple of weeks. Gold♥ 12:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"This is not a forum for general discussion of British Isles. Any such messages will be deleted." unquote. Really the wording is very amusing. I had to look at the calender to make sure it wasn't April 1st,) Gold♥ 12:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear: essentially it's a maintenance template. Removing those (without the issue in question being resolved) is seen as vandalism (hence the existence of warnings like {{uw-maintenance1}}, {{uw-maintenance2}} etc). I agree, though - if the non-article-related chat disappears over the next few weeks, we can remove the template. But the way things are at the moment, that's quite a big "if". The template should stay until there's consensus that the issue is resolved. Waggers 12:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the banner. It says "not for general discussion" and the link to WP:NOT#FORUM explains why. This discussion page frequently deteriorates into discussions which are far from ways to improve the article, which is why the banner is needed. Bazza 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC) (not Baz)

removing a banner cannot be vandalism. one editor puts something in, another removes it as being uneccesary ... this is the wp way. I have removed it as its job is better and more politely done by the notice already there IMHO. Abtract 15:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing maintenance tags is vandalism - otherwise the warnings I listed above wouldn't exist. WP:TALK states that the same rules that apply to article pages apply to talk pages - so removing a maintenance tag from a talk page without ensuring that it is redundant is indeed vandalism. Waggers 10:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Objected to by the people

A ref has been supplied for it being objected to by the people, namely this link [15]. Does anyone have one that isn't locked away behind premium paid for access, as it isn't that great if this is the only one we have available. Anyway I believe that I've read this one before and I'm not sure it supports that it is "objected to by the people." As I recall it's an editorial letter written by someone expressing their displeasure at the term, it doesn't support that "the people" object to the term. Ben W Bell talk 07:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlikely that Kevin Myers would be "expressing [his] displeasure at the term", more likely a sarcastic aside at "the people." However, I think the phraseology is a bit out - and repititious of the previous sentence. "Object to by the people" has a bit of a "We the People" ring to it and so in an Irish context has an air that a referendum has been held on the matter. --sony-youth^pléigh 07:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if K Myers can characterise "millions" of Irish objecting to the term that is fairly definitive; him being a lover of all things Imperial and British. Whether you like the SOUND of the fact or not, it is still a fact as you folk say; and Wiki must reflect that. (Sarah777 16:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Myers was born and raised in Leicester, England, impartial journalism, I should say so. Gold♥ 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know it's not ideal, but it is only a two euro fee to get on there for 24 hours: hardly that unresaonable to ask if you want to check its validity. --Pretty Green 16:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Saz has jumped the gun by changing "many" to "most" before the reference is available. I've reverted it until a reference showing that >50% of the population concerned object to the term. Personally, I think that "many" would suffice - it's more than "some" and less that "all", whilst not demanding verification. Bazza 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a good reference by any means - Myers merely expressing his opinion (in an opinion piece!), not backed by anything. Like Sony says, its a swipe at the Irish, if anything. The actual quote is:

"Though millions of people from these islands - oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles - visit mainland Europe every year,...".

So he's not even quantifying the numbers objecting as "millions". Maybe just Irish Times readers? :-P (The rest of the article is about passports for pets and the small size of the Irish army, in the wider context of the Irish relying on Britain for solutions to everything). Still, I'd leave it in until we can find a better replacement. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference for "many", Stephen Oppenheimer, Origins of the British, Constable and Robinson, London, 2007, p.xvi:

"I should say from the start that throughout this book I use the term 'British Isles' (and, only very occasionally, 'British') in the traditional sense: to refer to all of the islands in the immediate vicinity of Britain, including Ireland, Shetland and Orkney (and even more distant ones such as the Channel Islands which were included in the genetic dataset that I have used). I appreciate that many Irish do not regard themselves as British, with good reason. My inclusion of Ireland as part of the British Isles is only to avoid repeating the geographic reality, and not to make any contemporary political statement. I use 'Britain' in the Roman sense to refer to the 'big island' in case of the cumbersome political term Great Britain with its overtones of the Act of Union."

Weak reference for "most": Boards.ie, 1 Sept. 2006:

"Do you recognise the term 'British Isles' in reference to Ireland?":

Yes: 159 (25.60%)

No: 378 (60.870

I don't care: 84 (13.53%)

Personally, I'd stick with "many" until an newspaper/etc. poll is conducted, but think its worth putting in the references. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But it would give credence to something along the lines of "most people in the Republic of Ireland do not recognise the term applying to the Republic of Ireland" (sorry about the clumsy wording!). Not "objectionable" as some people wish, but probably closer to the truth. Bazza 19:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bazza, probably many would be more apt. As an editor said earlier, many is between most and some. That'd probable do until more data is available. - Gold♥ 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

"Many" find it objectionable; "Most" don't apply BI to include RoI. (Sarah777 01:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

That is true, but until we agree on a better reference. It's difficult to understand why some editors find it difficult (sic) to accept this fact. It seems to be the cause of much contention. But these are the facts, and they will remain so, I suppose. Gold♥ 03:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "many" find it objectionable. "Most" is merely an assertion until you can back it up. "Some" (including official bodies) obviously don't. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course having worked at a Market Research company before, how the question is phrased alters the outcome considerably. "Do you recognise the term 'British Isles' in reference to Ireland?" is giving people pause to consider something they may never have thought about and can skew the answers. A question of "What is the collective term for the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and surrounding islands?" without giving any options to people may come out with a different set of results. Even "Is Ireland part of the geographic area known as the British Isles?" would give a different spread. Phrasing and target questionees is everything, and as a result you can pretty much guarantee the majority outcome of any poll by being careful with the question. Just pointing this out for interest.

Oh and of course the answers can also be skewed by the moderator who posted its question as the first post of "do you see Ireland as part of the british isles, or are you as digusted as me by the term? dicksuss." Ben W Bell talk 06:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben, I think that last would be an excellent formulation. (Except for calling the questionee a "dicksuss") (Sarah777 09:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

No that last question as phrased by the moderator wouldn't be valid in any kind of poll or measure of public opinion as the questioner has put their view on the answer while putting it towards the asked. This view will influence people who are answering the poll. A proper poll question must be put forward as neutrally as possible and without giving the asked reason to think contrary to how they would normally think. As such a question must be very carefully phrased. You can get any answer you want dependant on how a question is phrased. Ben W Bell talk 10:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I think I'd got that point!! (Sarah777)

<reduce indent>There's more reasons than that to be wary about the poll esp. self-selection of respondents. The two questions you propose are even more flawed. "What is the collective term for the islands of Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man and surrounding islands?" - this presumes that there is a collective name and tests the respondents general knowledge. It doesn't ask what the respondent feels about the term. "Is Ireland part of the geographic area known as the British Isles?" Again, assumes that there is a term British Isles and asks a general knowledge question to the respondent, again doesn't get to the point of asking what the respondent feels about it. That the term "British Isles" exist and that it is the most widely used collective term for the islands is well-known in Ireland. We're not interested in testing the general knowledge.

On the other hand, the term "recognise" is poignant in terms of Anglo-Irish relations (or British-Irish as it has of late become known) and would be widely understood by an Irish audience. In context, I think the question was clearly understood, and we have a record of the discussion to go through if you don't think so. From looking quickly at that, it appears that there was some attempts at contortion by a few "Yes" voters in order to push a 'non-political' interpretation of "recognise". However, even they, it was eventually revealed, in fact did understand the question but choose to deliberately misrepresent how it should be interpreted in the ensuing discussion. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason why so many Irish people have reservations about the term British Isles is because it has led to some in the British media and minds to excert some kind of un-official claim over the whole island. I know you will say that this is just another Nationalist POV, however if you look at evidence snipets i have pointed out below from British media, as I find in Northern Ireland, you will see the inclusion of the whole island of Ireland, together with Great Britain and the term national somewhere along that picture. This is indeed shown in uk weather maps, the BBC's "Great British Quiz" and "Test the Nation" Television Programs, as well as even on UK mobile network websites (O2-UK and T-Mobile UK). Given that the UK currently only owns roughly 17% of the Irish island do you not think that this is abit insulting for the rest of the independent territory? Can you now see that the term "British Isles" might be taken a bit too far to mean national rather than geographical in the minds of some in the UK and see now why the Republic of Ireland and Irish citizens may want the term changed? --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  16:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of what this "Test the Nation" is so I can't comment on what it is trying to achieve. The O2 one doesn't seem to imply anything on their web site, and clicking through all you do is enter your town in a text box, it has nothing to do with the map graphic other than it being a graphic to link to a store searcher. BBC weather maps do indeed show the entirety of the British Isles, but they imply nothing about ownership over it in any way. They also show France, Iceland, Scandanavia and even all of Europe and northern Africa dependant on their level of zoom. They don't provide a forecast for the Republic and don't usually mention it, not least ever in a way that implies ownership. All weather forecasts tend to show neighbouring countries, no matter where you are in the world, on the basis of a modern satellite image. In the Republic of Ireland do they only show their territory on the weather maps and excise Northern Ireland from the image, or does that mean that Ireland is claiming ownership of Northern Ireland through its inclusion? A very quick search shows that Irish news channels do indeed include Northern Ireland in their weather maps even if they don't always mention it, so the point stands. Does this mean that RTE etc are claiming Northern Ireland to be national territory? In fact the RTE maps on the website also show parts of England, Scotland, Wales and the Isle of Man in the map, should we read anything into that?Ben W Bell talk 21:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Test the Nation is shown on UK channel BBC One every couple of months and is hosted by Anne Robinson. A web link and more information on the television can be seen on wikipedia by clicking this link - Test the Nation. Even though the test can only be carried out in England, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland, the logo for the show clearly shows the archipelago of Great Britain and Ireland. While I agree with your point on the weather not claiming national durastiction, this cannot be the case for this BBC television program. The O₂ (UK) mobile phone site clearly as of today (see my timestamp and above image) on its main page site shows Great Britain and Ireland to search for O2 related stores. I understand that you cannot search for a store in the south of Ireland, however as O₂ (UK) Limited does not operate in the Republic of Ireland, I do not understand why again they are showing the whole island. In this case they do not say it is national territory, but this can be implied in peoples minds. Other cases include the ITV broadcasting program GMTV, who have a phone-in part of the show displaying a "map of the nation" showing the UK and Ireland even though viewers in the Republic of Ireland cannot phone into this show. Other examples are out there in press and media and i am sure other editors ahve come across these. I am not accusing all the British media for doing this though clearly a lot do. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  23:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All good and well Rónán, but unless we get a published source describing the problem it cannot be included. There are examples, Gorbachev visit for example where he expected to be met by the British monarch in Shannon. Why? Because Ireland was in the British Isles. This used to be cited in the article but got lost somewhere in one great purge of dissent or another.

On a personal note, I really wouldn't get worked up over UK networks showing images that include the Republic, it's a standard affair to try to not clip land masses in graphics. Believe it or not, that's what the surrounds actually look like - if you're up high enough. Look a little closer too at the images and you'll see a little dot for the Isle of Man - they must be enraged! --sony-youth^pléigh 01:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No Sony, being part of the sovereign political entity of that is Britain by whatever name they are hardly very outraged. Unlike folk in Ireland who are sovereign and not British in any sense whatsoever and thus entitled to be enraged. (Sarah777 08:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

Danger, Sarah! You don't want to stir the the Sons of Mann or the Fo Halloo (in Irish Faoi Thalamh, the Underground)! --sony-youth^pléigh 12:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well every example I've been able to find on Irish websites includes Northern Ireland in the images,maps and iconography even if they don't involve Northern Ireland, and no one is claiming this means they have a national control over it. It's no different. Very few countries clip maps as mentioned above and usually show neighbouring countries. Ben W Bell talk 13:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dont get me wrong sony-youth, I have no objection to the islands of Ireland and Britain being shown in maps in ANY durastiction. We all have a common and shared history and this should be embraced and encouraged. My only objection is when certain parts of the media take that relationship and try and claim it under the term nation. I dont believe that this should be added into the main article either as it is just my POV on the matter and something I have added tot he talk section to get others views on the matter. As a small Republic, I understand how some foreigners can make the mistake in thinking we are all one country. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have that problem, sometimes being confused with Russians due to their former relationship with the Soviet Union. As for the Isle of Mann, I respect their level of autonomy, however they are a crown dependency and thus it could perhaps be argued a de-facto part of the UK nation (sorry to any Mann citizens if this may insult you). Ben, I believe you are mis-interpreting the issue I was trying to address here. The problem is not showing the whole land mass of the islands in their respective durastictions, it is the use of the word Nation being brought into it. Southern websites show the north as Donegal borders mostly northern counties and there is an affiliation between the two parts of Ireland. I do understand however how the displaying of the whole of Ireland on Irish websites may be politically insulting to those of a Unionist mindset. If anything more needs to be brought up on this it should be highlighted in the Ireland article where it would be more relivant. This is a British Isles article and a point to show the reader an example of why Irish people may object to the term British Isles. --  RÓNÁN   "Caint / Talk"  17:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Irony check Ben! Media outlets in NI routinely clip off the rest of Ireland; even on Wiki! The Manx Independence movement? I'll add Mann to Gibraltar on the ever-growing list of tiny places whose hopes for national liberation I endorse. (Sarah777 17:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

Always a pleasure to agree (I think) with you, Sarah. The fact that certain NI outlets cut off the Republic from maps of the island (or at least certainly used to, I haven't see NI local TV news/weather in a while) speaks more about their editorial politics than any British outlet leaving the Republic in any image, or any Irish outlet leaving the North in. (p.s. could you add Clare to your list of occupied territories? I cannot rest until it is rightfully returned to Connacht from those thieving Munster b*stards!) --sony-youth^pléigh 17:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Sony, I'm always agreeable! When Dublin and Wicklow are reunited I'll look into the Clare situation. Never realised it was once part of Connacht. (Sarah777 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC))

CI geographically a part of BI

I've edited "not geographically a part" to "not physically a part" and linked "physically" to the Physical geography article. I've no issue with explaining that the CI are closer to the French coastline, but saying that they are not geographically a part of the British Isles is simply untrue (see the many returns for book searches on "'British Isles' geography 'Channel Islands'"). Neither Physical or Human Geography alone can lay claim to the title "Geography." --sony-youth^pléigh 07:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Good move, Sony. I must admit, though, that I'm not entirely happy with the Channel Islands bit at present. It currently reads:

The group also includes the crown dependencies Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Some sources question the validity of including the Channel Isles within the British Isles, as they are not physically a part of the archipelago.

I think we need to be clearer that the Channel Islands aren't always viewed as part of the group in the first sentence - something like:

The group also includes the crown dependencies Isle of Man and, variably, the Channel Islands; some sources question the validity of including the Channel Isles within the British Isles, as they are not physically a part of the archipelago.

I know it's only a minor change, but I think it's clearer. Any thoughts? Another related issue is that we need to be consistent on our usage - is it "Channel Isles" or "Channel Islands"? Waggers 10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Broadly, that's the direction I'd like to go in but I'm concerned about "variably" with regard to undue weight. If we proceed through the article with the CIs "in" then we do need to say that people do draw up the point that they are physically a part of the French coast. But, in at least one of our sources that grumble this point, they go on to count them as "in" because "generally" they are. A single "variably" in the definition doesn't explain just how often they are variably "in" or variably they are "out". I think the "out" is in far greater minority.

How about: "The group also includes the crown dependency of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the archipelago." --sony-youth^pléigh 11:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'm certainly happy with that. (You're very good at this!) Waggers 11:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Made change. (Thank you.) --sony-youth^pléigh 11:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are often referred to as part of the "British isles" - while this may be the case politically, I think it is hard to make a case for them to be geographically so - because this would mean Chausey, or even the Faroes in non-human terms (because Shetland doesn't exactly fit in neatly either), would be part of the British Isles. --MacRusgail 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to judge the merits of whether something should be the case or not, just reflect the facts. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Other uncertainties regarding the topography"? To me that reads like people can't agree how many mountains and deserts there are in the British Isles - perhaps a consequence of not agreeing what they are but hardly the point. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 11:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stupid. That was me. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Lol - it's easy to do - I'm a bit wary of touching that paragraph if I can get someone else to do it for me :-)--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, the fact is that the Channel Islands are not part of the same physical archipelago - that's my point. --MacRusgail 18:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And that point is clearly made in the article already. What change are you proposing? Waggers 10:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A cultural entity

Would anyone dispute that the British Isles (including, in this case, the Channel Islands), are a cultural entity, in the same way, say, that Scandinavia, or the Indian subcontinent is? And note the latter term by the way, which is an interesting parallel, inasmuch as not all of it is politically part of India any more. TharkunColl 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. (Sarah777 21:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but the perspective differs depending on whether one looks east or west. For this view point, the Celtic Nations are the cultural entity. From where you are (I guess) the Home Nations is the cultural entity. I suppose British is the word that you would use to describe the nature of your experience. (In its modern sense) it would be the antithesis of the word I would use for mine. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not all hunky dory up in Scandinavia either. Quote from the WP page;

“ "Since the Fennoman movement of the 1830s and political Scandinavism of the 1830s- 1850s, the inclusion of Finland and Iceland has divided opinions in the respective states. Although it depends on context which countries are considered Scandinavian, the term the Nordic countries is used unambiguously for Norway, Sweden, Denmark (including the Faroe Islands and Greenland), Finland (including Åland) and Iceland. ”

Gold♥ 19:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to soften what I said a little. The truth, I think, is not so hard drawn. 800 years of cultural imposition and the post-1846 demographics in the age of mass communication are hard to put aside (as well as being a cause of differences too), but wide gaps exist. I think from the outside we are seen as a cultural group but with known known distinctions between the "fringe" (that actually occupies the greater land area) and the "centre". Something on my reading list for quite a while has been Through Irish Eyes from the British Council. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So exclusive, it's rather a political myth that England isn't a Celtic nation.. but then that's largely why the term Celtic was adopted in 1707.. and that's another article needing attention, what with the weird statement that "At one time the whole British Isles was predominantly Cruthin/Celtic. The Romans called Britain Britannias and Britanniae after Britto meaning Cruithne" ... must fix that sometime... dave souza, talk 21:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But then BI would leave out Brittany and Galicia from the cultural home, so the that notion is pretty much put to bed. Cruthin were tiny in Ireland during the Roman times. Gold♥ 21:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how long I could use the Little Yellow Guy before some AR quotes some Wiki policy? (Sarah777 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

LOL,- Gold♥ 22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

At one time, maybe ... but, of course, the only people that the same Romans called Celtic were the Gauls south of the Seine. Celtic today, yes, is a political myth ("cultural", I would prefer to say, "political" sounds like it has a deliberate intent, but the difference, as in all things, is academic). And, yes, the English are not invited - but is that the definition of exclusive? Of course, if we are to pull at political myths, surely "British" would be the most laughable of them all? What does Brown say it stands for now? ("... the word British ... in Old English implied an association with the whole British Isles" Old English, I see.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Touchy question. In many respects, yes - we watch most of the same TV, watch most of the same sports, follow the same football teams, drink the same (generic European/American) beer... in other respects, no, not at all. Landing in the centre of London is still a mild culture shock. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 21:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I never ever watch TV, do my own sports, never follow soccer, and nothing beats a glass of Guinness, how's that. Gold♥ 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, when I say "we", I mean "most people" - ditto from me on (most) TV, sports, and soccer. And the only thing better than a glass of Guinness is a pint of it! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a cite? Gold♥ 01:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Guinness is my favourite tipple too, when I'm in a pub. We all, of course, speak the same language - it may well have been imposed, but it was on England too. We all have pubs, and eat "full breakfasts" (when we can). We share TV and other media. And we live and work in each other's countries. TharkunColl 02:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I came up with these (by no means exhaustive, but a start):

• English language
• Shared media (also diversity of media, between ENG/SCO/IRE version of same imprintm plus: RTE in IRE-only, BBC in UK but recieved in IRE)
• The fact that the UK includes Ireland in "British" in cultural terms, and that this is not rejected as it is in political terms, is obviously a point to be made (e.g. 100 Great Britons)
• Shared experiece of English language vs. NOT-English languages (Welsh, S.G., Irish, maybe Scots is the most obvious NOT-English language, as clearly its of the same kin, but in practical purpose is to say NOT-English - or in the case of Ireland NOT-Irish)
• Strong ties to the "new world" (Australia, New Zealand, USA, Canada) - could we make a map showing numbers from each region claiming ancestory to the BI in these places against rest of Europe
• Pub culture and attitudes to alcohol
• "Cuisine"
• Dress (non-traditional)
• Sport:
  • Unity: Rugby (again split between whole British Isles and the Celtic League), soccer (unitiy through NOT-English?)
  • Gaelic-English/Welsh split: cricket and gaelic games
• Mythology - lots of shared myths between IRE/SCO/WAL/MAN, except what ENG takes from WAL (esp. Arthur) - I suspect that there is another stark division
• IRE/SCO/MAN and WAL traditional music and instruments vs. morris dancing (stick-and-knee-slapping-oh-so-clearly-German)

Some of these are in the article already. Personally, like I said above, I see a split happening, if we plunge into culture - one that should be pointed out, but one that doesn't necessarily discount the value on a "unitary" shared culture. But it should be understood that a discussion of a "unitary" culture will necessitate discussion of historical cultural imposition - and that could get touchy for some editors here. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You mean cultural genocide might be touchy? Surely not! We'll all lie back and enjoy it like Sony (Sarah777 21:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

just regarding your non exhaustive list

• Gaelic is returning in force and is technically the states first language english is the language business today and so is utilised in many countries not just ireland
• RTE 1, RTE 2, TV3, TG4 (in irish language), channel 6,(setanta sports ireland) these are all our own irish channels and it is these which are most significant for our own news/interests etc, we can get US channels CNN OR ESPN as well as the british channel BBC if we choose but are not indigenous channels and only relevant for light entertainment and maybe foreigners take on world events
• any briton journalist or other who calls an irish citizen today a briton is simply an ignorant and offensive person and should learn some manners, history(brutality of the british towards the irish) and respect
• the fact that some our ancestors were forcibly shipped off by britons to what in those days was a most likely slavery and cruelty has exactly what baring on our cultural similarity
• the pub aspect has more to do with opening hours and the similar weather
• Dress not sure what you mean here
• the main sports played in ireland are GAA hurling and football, soccer is a world wide sport, and rugby is also played by france, argentina and italy etc
• setanta, conn of the hundred battles,Táin Bó Cuailnge,The Coming of the Milesians, The Salmon of Knowledge, brian boru etc etc oh yes im sure you and other britons know all about irelands legends baahh
• Irish instruments and music may have been exported to scotland but its origins are firmly in ireland and are still strong and vibrant today in chart music, Fleadh Cheoils etc not so elsewhereCaomhan27 23:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any British journalist who would call an Irish citizen a Briton, because that is not what is implied in the phrase British Isles. And whilst I connot speak for other Britons, I am indeed familiar with the Irish legends you mention, so I think it was probably a bit of an assumption of yours that we are all ignorant. The non-exhaustive list of similarities was just that - non-exhaustive. There are countless others that could have been included. TharkunColl 08:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

i quote from the article "It is not unusual for British organisations to include Irish people in lists of "Great Britons" or to include Irish authors in collections of "British" literature" these are british journalists etc knowingly or unknowningly(possibly due to the offensive british isles term) incorrectly calling citizens of Ireland(ROI) britons either their education system has failed them or they are simply ignorant, either way it would be best to remove a possible factor for this confusion and as an added bonus for once be gracious and diplomatic to your neighbouring EU member state. well if you are familar with irelands legends i would dare to say you would be in the minority in britain and there is no reason that should be different as ireland is different country. I am no expert on latvia's legends and im sure no latvian would expect me to be yes mine was also non-exhaustive and so there are countless other major differences i could also include —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caomhan27 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 1 August 2007 BST

Of course, the difficulty here is that we could do the same with any geographical grouping: I could provide much evidence to suggest that Europe is a cultural area, but that would not be to say that it is an homogenous whole without any difficulties between the contrasting nations. So of course there are some aspects of Irish/British society/culture that are the same - the lands are too inter-related for there not to be. Equally, they have their own independent cultural identities. Just as, really, Yorkshire and Kent have their own differences and (I would imagine) Cork and Galway.

To bring this back to the article, I kinda agree with Sony here. The 'sport and culture' section currently does what we're wanting I think: it's just a bit messy (I doubt its ever really been written by one person as a coherent whole - it seems like bits from different editors tagged together). Perhaps this needs to be rewritten, if just for stylistic reasons?

As for cultural imposition: I think its certainly worth mentioning, though I think it would also be a fallacy to suggest that there was an independent 'Irish' culture that a 'British' culture then imposed itself on, or that the two would be that different if there had never been British control of Ireland. Cultural identities are ever shifting and a formed in a far more complex and inter-twined way than such simple explanations would suggest. --Pretty Green 10:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Independent "Irish" culture - or wholly distinct from the UK - is a non-starter as per English/Scottish/Welsh/etc.. For a start, I cannot think of anything "Irish" pre-1169 that does not involve Scotland! What I meant was that there are tensions in a groupings within the British Isles (between groups of the traditional countries, not not just between them as distinct individualcultural entities). Just looking at the aspects that take in everyone equally (rugby, UK media, etc.), while ignoring the things that divide us into obvious subgroups (cricket, national language, etc.), doesn't paint the right picture. I think the sport and culture section does a good attempt at avoiding that at present. That's what I meant when I said at the very top that there are two perspectives (that can at times meet head on, and have each be politicised, and can each get ugly, but that shouldn't put us off discussion each. in respect to the other. and in respect to the British Isles). That's a tension that, I think, is very important to understanding the British Isles and the kind of things that I would like to see developed in the article. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The British Isles, if they form a cultural zone, are so as a result of English expansionism. Sure, there is a common Gaelic and Brythonic heritage over wide areas, but it's the fact that the various parts been conquered or annexed by England that has made them "one cultural zone". --MacRusgail 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Your point being? TharkunColl 23:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh Tharkun, I wondered if one of the Britishers would spot that! Of course the fact that alone of the anglicised nations the Irish found the strength and will to utterly and violently reject murderous British Imperialism, the UK, the Union Jack and the Monarchy (symbols of Imperialism) and all the trappings of "Britishness" implies profound cultural differences. But I'm staying out of this particular barney unless someone tries to introduce some pov stupidity into the actual article; which is already bad enough. (Sarah777 09:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

"One cultural zone"? Without even starting on the cultural differences, about the only cultural similarities are that are not also shared with most of the rest of Europe are that most people speak English, eat more fried food than most, drink too much bad beer and go to pubs rather than bars. There is no more cultural similarity between someone from Galway and someone from Newcastle than between someone from Newcastle and someone from Gdansk or Prague. The islands are close to each other and share many cultural features, just as the islands are close to the mainland and share many cultural features with that too. That doesn't mean they make "one cultural zone" unless you consciously ignore the rest of Europe. 81.32.184.207 10:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to a cultural entity, I don't think anyone with anything closely resembling NPOV can deny one existing. I think shared culture deserves a mention in the article... perhaps if there are any references as to the popularity of British soaps or other TV programmes in Ireland that might be useful. Certainly to deny a distinct British-Irish culture would be like claiming that there is no shared culture in the US and Canada. MichiganCharms 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying there is "shared culture" is VERY different to saying there is "one cultural zone", or even that there is "a shared culture" unique to Britain and Ireland. Of course there is shared culture, but the USA and Canada aren't "one cultural zone" or a single cultural entity either. West Texas or Louisiana are NOT in the same cultural entity as Toronto or Boston. Similarly, any two places in Britain and Ireland, or the UK and Ireland, have many aspects of culture that is shared. So do Newcastle and Gdansk. As for a common British-Irish culture, is cricket in it? That was John Major's defining feature of British culture, wasn't it? How about Morris Dancing, caber tossing, hurling, the GAA, Pimms, royalty, real ale, Boxing Day, poppies in November, Fianna Fail, Jackie Healey Rae, the Orange Order, Europe, John Bull, the Euro, Oxbridge, post-Imperial angst, and so on. It seems pretty clearly not. Besides, didn't Eddie Izzard do a show about how the defining features of English Culture weren't English at all but were actually European? 83.36.221.106 10:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, as someone who has traveled the world many times, the culture in major cities is alike. Vancouver and San Francisco... the ideals, the culture, the people are very close to each other. Similarly, London, Dublin, Glasgow. All three are really similar places, the people there have a lot similarities if only because of the political history of the area... weren't Dubliner's amongst the first to get anglicised? -MichiganCharms 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In Glasgow when someone says "which team do you follow?" do they mean the same as they do in Dublin or London? No. Has anyone in Glasgow or London heard of Gay Byrne or Dustin the Turkey? Not many. Does anyone in Dublin or Glasgow have the faintest idea what a cockney is talking about? Probably not. Do all of them share cultural features? Yes, sure. Do they share many? Sure. Do they share more than - for example - Aberdeen and Bergen or Harwich and Vlissingen or Darlington and Ijmuiden? In any case, not all major urban areas are alike. Paris is NOT like Los Angeles but it´s really very like London. Nowadays lots of people in Paris even speak English and eat McDonalds. 83.36.221.106 22:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also interesting is this map... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_religion_map_en.png . One cultural zone? 81.32.183.150 12:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Off topic

Nowhere in the above discussion is there any reference to making changes to the article. I've removed it once, and unless some clear justification is given soon for including this discussion on this page, I'll remove it again. Waggers 09:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See post at 08:14, 7 June 2007, as per my edit comment, specific comments to the article:

• "could we make a map showing numbers from each region claiming ancestory to the BI in these places against rest of Europe"
• "Some of these are in the article already."
• "a discussion of a "unitary" culture will necessitate discussion of historical cultural imposition"

I had assumed that the entire duscussion was related to improving the article (simple because I had, not even as a matter of good faith). Do we need to include references to "the article" in every sentence we post on this page from now on? --sony-youth^pléigh 09:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think certainly the first post in any thread should clearly state what change is being proposed. The first post in the thread above certainly doesn't do that, and doesn't refer to the article at all. -- Waggers 09:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you were thinking of changes to the article, Sony - but you're the only person to refer to it, none of the other contributors to the above thread were talking about making changes or improving the article. Waggers 09:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I think some leeway in topic, given the gulf of perspectives between contributers here, especially on a topic such as that, is necessary in order to formulate a mutual understanding that can lead to consensus. It can go wild - and, as we know, can lead to simple flaming - and that should be avoided. But, I think that's better solved by regularly drawing discussion back into topic rather cutting it off forthwith. (Just my two euro cents.) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Waggers - I understand your frustraition with such debates: they get the article nowhere most of the time and simply lead to editors disagreeing with each other; however, I don't think removing sections is the most diplomatic way to go forward. Try and steer the discussion back to the article, or politely ask how the content in the discussion could be used to improve the article; let's try constructive criticism ;) --Pretty Green 10:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I think that's fair - although I notice that you talked about drawing discussion back - the thread above was never on topic until you joined it; if it wasn't for your post, surely I was right to delete the thread? I for one am fed up with this talk page being used for something it wasn't intended for. Waggers 10:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

(replying to Pretty Green) - I agree to an extent, but this is the tactic we've used up to now and it doesn't seem to help. When I've previously tried to pull wayward threads onto the topic of improving the article, I'm met with responses like this, which explain nothing. Meanwhile, official templates like {{notaforum}} and the WP:TALK guidelines make it clear that removing off-topic discussions is not only acceptable, but expected. Waggers 10:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

<comment moved>

off topic

I have removed this warning as being unecessary (imho) in light of the notice that already does the job more politely. Abtract 10:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The current notice doesn't mention at all that the talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article and not for general discussion. In fact, it rather implies the opposite. What's impolite about the {{off topic warning}} notice? If you can think of better wording, I advise suggesting it at Template talk:off topic warning. Waggers 10:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't look closely I thought you were simply putting back the previous not a forum tag which I thought was a tad harsh in its wording. However I still think this offtopic tag is unecessary ... too many similar notices and warnings at the start reduce their impact. I humbly suggest that you leave it for another editor (many watch this page as you know) to add the warning back in if they think it useful and I will go along with that. Abtract 10:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

How about a compromise, and we add some of the wording from {{off topic warning}} into the existing header? I think something along those lines is definitely needed on this page, and as you'll see from the earlier discussions above, there are already other editors who concur. Waggers 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And Waggers, you wished for smilies. Be careful of what you wish for!  ;) Gold♥ 11:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that you got warned as a result of fulfilling my wish - sorry about that! Waggers 11:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the smiley, Sarah! Waggers 07:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem Wag. I'd do the same for anyone! (Sarah777 17:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Excellent idea to include it in the existing note but I have removed the implied threat element ... this article is contentious enough without editors feeling under threat of their words on the talkpage being arbitrarily removed. Abtract 14:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This new topic is very off-putting for any editor who wants to chip in their view as to how the page should go forward, and I concur with Abtract's approach. Waggers, if you don't mind me pointing out something to you. Out of the last 2000 edits on the British Isles page, only 5 were yours. Out of the last 1000 edits on the Talk:British Isles page, 60 were yours. There are some very knowledgeable editors on this page, and we must take countenance of that fact. Gold♥ 19:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance of those stats. Edit count does not equate to knowledge in any way, shape or form; the reason I don't keep changing the BI article is because it's pretty good as it stands. Waggers 10:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. The reason I don't keep changing it is because British editors who are happy with its pov-ridden British slant would just keep changing it back. (Sarah777 20:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Alternative terms in English

Three references for alternative names were removed from the article (and the alternative names also of course!).

• Britain and Ireland (reference 1, reference 2): As if evidence on this talk page was not enough, here we have a guide for foreign students to TCD warning them to say "Britain and Ireland" not "British Isles" and a US teacher's aid affirming that "Britain and Ireland" is the common term in Ireland.
• The Isles (reference): this is a well-known term, and important in current political landscape. There is a clear case for it inclusion.

Is there an issue with including common alternative names in English for the archipelago? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should indeed include them. ... dave souza, talk 21:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Common alternative names should indeed be prominently mentioned, but none of the three references above are usable within the article.—eric 23:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard the term 'The Isles' in years of reading about Ireland. I suspect the author of the website has half-remembered the phrase 'these islands', which is certainly commonly used in the strictly limited context of the peace process. But the point is that the reference is a self-published website that is not a reliable source for anything.

I wouldn't deny that the phrase Britain and Ireland is commonly used, but the difficulty that we face is in differentiating between it used as a substitute for British Isles and it used as a short form of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland - two states, rather than a geographic area.

Again, I have problems with both the references. The K12 academics website is an American education resource website. I would be doubtful about using it as a source for an article about American education - we have no information as to its reliability. But as a guide to European geographical nomenclature it has zero credibility. There is no reason to assume that whoever wrote the page was an expert on the popularity of certain terms for the islands off the north-west coast of France.

The Trinity College reference is similar. It seems to be an essay of uncertain provenance about human rights. For starters it doesn't actually say that Britain and Ireland is commonly used in Ireland, but even if it did, this is a human rights document, and again there is no reason to think its author is an expert on the popularity of the term 'Britain and Ireland'.

Finally, it should be recognised that adding additional terms to the opening para is a major change, and that if we are to do this the terms must a) be in common use b) this must be verifiable.--86.31.239.78 23:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We can't simply reject references and sources we disagree with and accept those we agree with! The term "Britain and Ireland" is manifestly used as an alternative to "British Isles" (regardless of other more limited usage). regarding American sources - I would equally question the authority of, for example, British sources as lacking credibility. (Sarah777 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

I think there is a bit of confusion over the K12 one. It supports it being a common term, but doesn't support it being "the" common term or a more common term, it just says it's a common term. Doesn't mean the same thing Ben W Bell talk 06:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

True; but there isn't another candidate for the common term (none of the IONA, Atlantic Isles etc qualify}. If I may offer some "original research" it is the only term I commonly hear. (In Ireland - I hasten to add).(Sarah777 07:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

Here's an interesting remark in a textbook on Prehistory in Britain and Ireland by an academic from Reading University. "It is no longer accurate to talk of the ‘British’ Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country." Also, from the Genuki site "The island grouping situated off the north-west coast of continental Europe is referred to by geographers as the British Isles. This phrase is repugnant to many Irish people who prefer the term "Britain and Ireland"." 81.32.183.150 14:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard all of the alternative terms in English at some stage, with one exception - "Atlantic Isles". Never, ever come across it. Googling it brings back mainly cruise holiday/sailing websites which refer to the 'Caribbean and Atlantic Isles'. Going to remove that one from the opening, if nobody objects? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 15:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

@81.32.183.150 - "repugnant" !! in all the debate between "disliked"/"objected to"/"find offensive"/etc. never did we think of "repugnant" - great word! "re - pug - nant"! wonderful!!

@Bastun - "Atlantic Isles" - heard of alright, more of a scholarly name (see [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Atlantic+Isles%22&spell=1 here). --sony-youth^pléigh 15:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've used "obnoxious" myself, surely I get some credit for that? (Sarah777 17:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

I agree and have removed "Atlantic Islands" which is obscure and possibly wider in usage and "These Islands" which is a purely colloquial phrase and also used elsewhere in the world for other island groups. MarkThomas 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree its not a name, but think its important to note none the less. I put it back in, but only italicised after the discussion of avoidance in politics. Generally that the in which it is (see also quote I found mentioning both Athlantic Isles and "the Isles"). --sony-youth^pléigh 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, I go along with that, thanks S-Y. MarkThomas 16:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have an issue with the opening of "The British Isles, also Britain and Ireland", it seems to imply that it is equivalent when not all usage of the term "Britain and Ireland" are synonymous with "British Isles" and are often used to represent the two governments not discuss a geographic entity. This opening seems to imply that they are interchangable when even "Britain and Ireland" doesn't means the same thing as "British Isles." These differences in usage can be shown in simple searches. Does Britain and Ireland mean Great Britain and Ireland? If so isn't that just talking about the two main islands in the group and not the entire geographic group? Taking Google.ie as an example, "Britain and Ireland" gets 57K hits, but "Britain and Ireland" -"Great Britain and Ireland" only 37K, which straight off shows that it isn't being used for the same thing. Ben W Bell talk 07:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It's apparent from even a quick search that "British Isles" often means the UK, which is quite different from "Britain and Ireland", e.g. http://flying15.org/gbr/ which is #10 in the results of my Google search for "British Isles". "Britain and Ireland" is much clearer.  ;-)) . 81.32.183.150 09:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "The British Isles" usually means the UK; unlike the Wiki article. Just as "Britain and Ireland" usually means what the Wiki article refers to as "the British Isles". Thus a better title would obviously be "Britain and Ireland"; and start the article with "Britain and Ireland, also The British Isles"; then we can debate whether to remove "The British Isles" on the basis that it is very ambiguous and usually means the UK. (Sarah777 17:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Good Lord! Can that be ME they are talking about below↓↓↓↓↓↓↓(Sarah777 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

RFC/USER discussion concerning Sarah777

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Sarah777. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777, where you may want to participate. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Geology

Just reading some of the main pages on some of the topics on this page. The page on "Geology of the British Isles" doesn´t seem to be any such thing. It seems to be the Geology of Great Britain but with a different name on the page. Any thoughts? 81.32.183.150 23:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

... and specifically the geology of England, featuring the geology of Scotland and Wales. Of the 10 references to Ireland, seven were in the phrase "Britain and Ireland", two were in passing and slightly bewildering ("Coal can be found in many areas of Britain and Ireland ... and in Ireland ...", "[There are] deposits of peat in Ireland ..."), only one aspires to any treatment of the subject ("... a complex mixture of rocks forming ... Connemara, Donegal and Mayo mountains of Ireland ..."). Doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure if its because Irish editors naturally stay away from anything to do with that phrase (whether deliberately or simply because they see it as irrelevant), or whether British editors naturally away from anything to do with Ireland (whether deliberately or simply because they see it as irrelevant). History of the British Isles (a woeful page) features much of the same thing. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Misquote in the intro

The introduction includes To avoid politicial sensitivities, the euphemism, these islands,[8] or a similar construction, is usually employed.[citation needed] — the reference associated with "these islands" quotes "the Isles", so I removed the statement; User:Sony-youth has reinstated, so I need to explain better. Perhaps just referring to "the Isles" would be better and fit the reference? The sentence also needs to be more strongly linked to the preceding Its use is also avoided in relations between the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. because I initially read it as a stand-alone fact rather than a reference to how the UK and Ireland jointly like to refer to the islands. Bazza 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Another editor (see above) had rv'd it for exactly the opposite reasons - because "the islands", he said, was the more common term. Personally, I don't care which it is - "isles", "islands," its all the same to me. Linking with the preceeding sentence would be great, but getting an explicit ref for this is going to be hell becuase most commenators just take it for granted and don't explitity state, "This is the term what the governments say together." Its just not explicit because the very nature of the thing.

Does anyone actually disagree with the statement? Because using only secondary sources, its a hellish thing to proove. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Example documents with use of "these islands": Belfast Agreement, St Andrews Agreement, Blair to the House of Oireachtas, Ahern to the Houses of Parliament --sony-youth^pléigh 14:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Its use is also avoided in communications from the governments of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom which, to avoid politicial sensitivities, usually use euphemisms such as these islands or the Isles.

Just one reference needed, to a euphemism of your choice. Bazza 14:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Suits me. Will dig for a good one. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Between a newspaper referring to the usage and two examples, it's pretty well cited, but for "these islands" only. Also, 5 secs on Google provides significant support. 83.39.134.72 16:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference (to [16]) is still misquoted. I've corrected it, and updated the text to the Isles which is what is used in the reference. Bazza 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Terms in English (cont.)

Good evening all, I see that healthy debate over this controversial term continues! I have two things to add to the discussion above regarding alternative terms in the English language. Firstly, both 'Atlantic Islands' and 'Islands of the North Atlantic' (IONA) lose their credibility when you consider that Iceland is also an island in the North Atlantic - to me at least this makes both terms unworkable as an alternative collective descriptions of Britain and Ireland. Secondly, there is another, viable English term in limited use: the Anglo-Celtic Isles (see 'Anglo-Celtic' article for more on this term). I personally use both 'Britain & Ireland' and 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' (the latter usually to highlight my dislike of the BI term!).

One more thing, I think that there is the ever-present danger that a bitter editting war like that we saw last spring/summer will break out on this article again. The solution arrived at then was pretty good I thought - simply having the controversial nature of the term clearly stated in the article introduction, with a clear link to a separate 'naming dispute' article to cover this in proper detail (without cluttering up the main article). I see that some people are arguing for this separate article to be merged with another 'naming through history' one, however I think this is a bad move - the topic needs to be covered directly.

Kind regards, Pconlon 23:58, 18 June 2007 (GMT)

And what are the Anglo-Celtic Isles? "Celtic" is an invented term. The term "British" means "Celtic", so for the English to be called "British" is actually a concession - I am British because I live in the British Isles, not because I speak a British language. May I, as an alternative, suggest English Isles, because everyone who lives in them speaks English. TharkunColl 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And everyone in....Newfoundland.....and Rhode Island..and the provinces of North and South Holland (except for small children)...and Gibraltar speak English too. Hardly in the "British Isles" or the "English Isles". Meantime, if British means Celtic - or vice versa - I look forward to TharkunColl's protracted attempts to re-write the history of the Iberian Celts and Italian Celts, etc. Glory awaits the man who convinces history that the Celtiberians are British. Fantasyland. 83.39.134.72 08:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"I am British because I live in the British Isles" - be careful not to confuse that with imagining that everyone who lives in the British Isles is British. The British government, for one, would disagree.

"Celtic is an invented term. The term British means Celtic ..." Never before have I seen such strange argumentation. So British means an invented term? And you go on to say that "for the English to be called [by an invented term] is actually a 'concession'"? --sony-youth^pléigh 23:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well if I said what Thark said it it'd be called "trolling"! (Sarah777 23:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

"British" was the term for what we now call "Celtic" (an invented term). The English hated being called "British" for hundreds of years. It's actually quite simple, really. TharkunColl 00:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but now they take pride in being British, do they not? (Sarah777 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

No. More than half of all English people identify themselves as "English rather than British" (see article Briton). Self-identifying as British has been in decline for quite some time - not only in Scotland and Wales, but also in England.

British in any sense:

England 48%

Scotland 27%

Wales 35%

White 45%

Non-white 57%

The only group among whom more than half self-identify as British are non-whites (presumably because they are not English, Scottish, or Welsh). TharkunColl 07:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So, no-one except non white immigrants in the "British Isles" (in this context apparently this means Great Britain) feels British. Simple really. 83.39.134.72 08:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) You forget about Unionists in Northern Ireland (the only group to exhibit a rise in British identity). "British was the term for what we now call Celtic." If you are referring to ancient times, the Brythons were never called Celtic. Nor were those who we now call Celtic, all Brythonic. (Dare you to forget the Gaels, or Scots as they may have been so called?) If you are referring to the modern sense of Celtic, British is rather more often seen as the antithesis of that, don't you think so? In any case, England is never included in what is called the "Celtic" today (see here.) Any browse through a standard text on nation/identity of the British Isles will evidience this, or you can read the following (from here):

... So-called ‘British’ histories were, until relatively recently, largely the histories of England and the English; the so called ‘Celtic’ nations of Scotland, Wales and Ireland were largely ignored, or where they were directly addressed, were largely problematised (Kearney, 1989;Colley, 1992). Likewise, as David McCrone observes of the early development of British sociology:

"British sociology simply accepted that ‘society’ was coterminous with the British state, unitary and highly centralised, driven by social change in the political and cultural heartland of southern Britain [i.e., England]. If there was a particular sociology of the ‘periphery’ – in Wales, Ireland and Scotland – it had to do with analysing a ‘traditional’, pre-capitalist way of life. It was judged to be the task of the sociologist of these parts merely to chart its decline and ultimate incorporation into ‘modern’ society, or so it seemed." (1992: 5)

This, of course, simply reminds the Welsh, Scots and other non-English peoples living in Britain that they continue to live in a multinational state dominated by the English (Connor, 1993; Crick, 1989, 1995; Miles, 1996). But it is further problematised by a second set of assumptions, about what it is to be English. The less contested, the more tacit, this identificatory category has been – or, more accurately, has been seen to be – the more it was an assumption that ‘the English’ were delimited as white, broadly Christian, and whatever was and is meant by ‘Anglo Saxon’ (perhaps it simply meant ‘not Celtic’). ...

In this sense, to bring this back to the point, Anglo-Celtic Isles, refers to a parity relationship between the centre and the periphary of these islands under (and post) the United Kingdom, as opposed to the unitary relationship implied by British Isles (favoured, I presume by the English), or a polar relationship of parity between two states, implied by Britain and Ireland (similarly favoured, I presume, by the Irish). --sony-youth^pléigh 08:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OKay, this reference is being used to support "Britain and Ireland" in the opening sentence. "Britain and Ireland is the correct usage when the two islands are being described as a single political unit as they were to become within the Union of Great Britain and Ireland from 1801 to 1922. There are various politically correct locations in vogue, notably ‘these islands’ and the ‘Atlantic archipelago’, but, apart from their imprecision, these too infer a greater political and social cohesion than existed ; unionist usage is now frequently less sensitive than previously, producing, especially in Northern Ireland, the ultimate oxymoron, the ‘British mainland’.}" This isn't valid. This reference is supporting the usage of "Britain and Ireland" as a single political usage, but we're not talking about anything political. We're talking here about a group of islands, politics don't come into geography. Britain and Ireland is generally used to refer to the political governments and states, which this reference also supports, not the geographical group of islands off the NW coast of continental Europe. Ben W Bell talk 09:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to 'Britain and Ireland', which the author rejects the term 'British Isles' in favour of, the author says that there are various politically correct locations in vogue, notably ‘these islands’ and the ‘Atlantic archipelago’. Where do you think he's referring to? It notable that "Atlantic archipelago" is is proferred as an alternative term for the authors perferred, "Britain and Ireland", as it clearly refers to an "archipelago", the subject of this article.

"politics don't come into geography" - see Geography, specifically that half of geography known as Human geography. It is getting tedious how various UK-based editor simply do not want mention of any phraseology other than "British Ises". When suggested to, in edit comments, that we should add references for alternative terms, one replied: "No, let's not." It is unfortunate that bias and discrimitation should so blinker contributors to this articles, especially those with a greater tendancy to argue that we are all one people at the end of the day. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, an inappropriate ref correctly removed. However, there are MANY refs to show that the islands (sometimes including the Channel Islands, sometimes not) are variously called "Britain and Ireland", "Great Britain and Ireland", "British Isles and Ireland", and these in a not political sense. Also, the way that "British Isles" is quite often used by the British media is as a synonym for the UK, IOM and CI can be confusing. Also, as from references on the BI dispute page, British Isles seems to be often used in Ireland in the same way. The Channel Islands are always the Joker because geographically they are not part of the archipelago. POLITICALLY there's a relationship, but geographically (physical geography) they're part of France. I kinda liked one of the American definitions of BI which specified something along the lines of "separated from the mainland by the English Channel". However, the fundamental problem with the term is that it's a term where the geography and the politics don't agree any more, if they ever did, and the term itself is left stranded, beached. 83.39.134.72 10:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. However, I have had numerous refs for "Britain and Ireland" cut out this last week because they were seen as not up to scratch in some way or an other, or simply - and honestly too, let's give credit - because they were not liked. Lists of example uses were routinely cut out in the past as original research, or contested with the argument that the author was just illiterate. It getting frustrating. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony-youth - please accept that I had genuine issues with the references you provided. We should be very wary about using internet sources (unless they are from copper-bottomed organisations). There is no substitute for dictionaries, encyclopedias, peer-reviewed academic journal articles etc. You will find a source for almost anything somewhere on the net. This is very different from a reliable source. To show goodwill, may I suggest an atlas of Britain and Ireland as a good reliable example of use of the term?--86.31.232.134 17:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but a little meek since the (removed) reference that sparked this discussion was from an journal article. Anyone got a copy of this atlas (Irish edition)? Although I suspect that that too would be removed, like the citation above, since that atlas does not mention the phrase 'British Isles' and so would probably be judged not to be relevent to the subject of this article (if not blantant Irish Nationalist POV and/or the irrevelavent view of a troublesome minority). --sony-youth^pléigh 20:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

One additional aside. Gathering references is not original research. It is NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Here's a quote from the NOR page. "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." 83.39.134.72 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is something I have difficulty understanding - okay, so we can collect evidience for, for example, the greater use of "Britain and Ireland" in Ireland, but without engaging in original research how can we prove its greater popularity or otherwise? Another editor could just as easily come back with a equally large list of references to uses of "British Isles" in Ireland. Unless we engage in original research (develop a hypothesis, test it in a structured way, and "publish" the results here), how can we prove it?

That would be different from, for example finding the cost of a specific advertisment in the Economist magazine - which I had been accused of original research in doing so in the past, but which is plainly "source-based" research. In that case, there is no interpreation to be done, its simply a case of look at the source, its obvious. In the "British Isles" vs. "Britain and Ireland" example, its more complex and requires a greater depth of research to "prove". --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't use collation as a back-door entry for OR, e.g. you can't say "I found 20 examples therefore it's more common than your term since you only have 10 examples". Apart from being OR that would smack of "na na na na naa nah." If you have a reference that says it's "very common" and a selection of references examples then you're writing a good encyclopedia article. In this case the article says "British Isles" is the most common term, but that others are also used, and it gives a selection of examples. That's not OR. If you were to start counting references to support some other hypothesis you'd be getting into OR. 83.39.134.72 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aye, but my issue is that that always seems to get knocked down by the "na na na na naa nah"'s. See the archive for the whole "alternatives are/are also/are sometimes/are often/etc. used" war. If the reference of examples aren't shot down as selective, or the authors not shot down as illiterate, then concentration is put on the text for inclusion of alternative terms until they are eventually squeezed out. As the long-term contributor wrote last night about including references for use of other terms, "No, let's not. This is blatant political POV. Please stop undermining what is, at the end of the day, a perfectly innocent geographical expression." The environment here is still hostile to the inclusion of any alternative terminology, I bleive because contributors from some quarters fear that it would be the thin end of a wedge to a whole host of Irish nationalist nasties. That has to change, not least because it is the brunt of our continual conflicts. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Multiple recent history and geography books on the "British Isles" recognise that the term is problematic and discuss use of alternative terms. Major (mostly British) media use various names to describe the islands (Irish media don't seem to talk about the collective islands very often, but that's really only my impression). Newspaper columns have discussed the problem with the term. Removing or ignoring such facts is impossible to reconcile with WP guidelines. Also, if I remember correctly, the editor you mention has a tendency to insist on keeping content that others don't like on other pages (specifically pictures of the Prophet) because he insists on building a comprehensive and informative encyclopedia and that religious sensitivities aren't grounds for excluding such content. 83.39.134.72 12:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never said that the dislike some Irish people have for the term should not be mentioned in the article. But the fact is that British Isles remains by far the most common name for the islands, not only internationally but also for the people that live on them. Politicians cannot alter language, no matter how much they might want to. The islands are very clearly and precisely defined by dictionaries, and that must always be our primary reference. Giving so much space to the anti-BI lobby is to give it undue weight. TharkunColl 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

<remove indent> What "anti-BI lobby"? Are you the "pro-BI lobby"? If so, go away and lobby where lobbying is allowed. The article says "British Isles" is the most common term. Other terms are also used. True and verifiable. The term is also NOT very clearly and precisely defined by dictionaries, since they can't decide whether the Channel Islands are in or not and in any case many maps and atlases don't use the term at all, or they use other terms. True and verifiable (and in any case there's no rule that dictionaries are our primary reference). The dislike of "some" Irish people is described in books on the history and geography of the British Isles in terms that make "some" hard to believe but which makes "many" a direct quote. True and verifiable. A government has said it dislikes the term. True and verifiable. You can keep using the term if you like. True and verifiable. Others don't have to and apparently don't. True and verifiable. The islands remain. True too, and apparently even verifiable. 83.39.134.72 12:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved an existing (and long established) section higher up into the article where it can address these issues. It has all the supporting references required. 83.39.134.72 10:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Support. However I thought we did have a reference supporting that "Britain and Ireland" is common in the RoI? It's disappeared, and while open to debate could have been used as a reference as long as it was being used geographically. Ben W Bell talk 12:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Was this it? This never actually made it onto the article. "Here's an interesting remark in a textbook on Prehistory in Britain and Ireland by an academic from Reading University. "It is no longer accurate to talk of the ‘British’ Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country." Also, from the Genuki site "The island grouping situated off the north-west coast of continental Europe is referred to by geographers as the British Isles. This phrase is repugnant to many Irish people who prefer the term "Britain and Ireland"." 83.39.134.72 14:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Hugh - Genuki is not a reliable source. It is a website run by volunteers (rather like Wikipedia), and while I am sure there is lots of good stuff on it, it cannot be regarded as authoritative.--86.31.232.134 17:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But the article with the assertion that the term British Isles "is repugnant to many Irish people" was written by one person who was, or is, a professional in genealogy, Director of a genealogy company, a published author and someone who lives in Leicester. So will he now also be condemned as not authoritative? And if so, on what basis? 83.39.134.72 10:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets assume that the person who wrote the article (which no longer appears to be on the genuki website, by the way) is an expert on genealogy. This doesn't make him an expert on cooking, the weather or on the state of Irish public opinion on the term 'British Isles'. Of course, he is welcome to do some research on this, and if he does, and gets it published in a reputable journal, it will be an impeccable source. As it is, its just his opinion, no more useful or authoritative than yours or mine.--86.31.232.35 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.leicester.co.uk/genuki/counties.htm . In the interim, his opinion seems to line up with many many many authors published in reputable journals. 84.146.140.29 23:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if the term really is common in the ROI, we must remember that the population of the UK outnumbers that of the ROI by 15:1. Therefore, it is undue weight to mention it in the heading, as if it was of equal status as a term employed by the inhabitants of the islands. This would just be incorrect. TharkunColl 12:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Poppycock! That's simply your bais. In your own words, you want to put and end to what you see as undermining a perfectly innocent geographical expression. That that is your opinion is your entitlement, but issues relating to the name of that region are widely accepted, not only in Ireland but in the UK too. That the term is "repugnant" (as cited above) in Ireland is hugely notable - the population of one of the two islands finds it "repugnant" and you don't want metion of it?! If it were a minority opinion in any one of the two jurisdictions, it would be a different matter, but the fact is that the people of one jurdiction finds it "repugnant", the government of one objects formally to it, the government of the other accepts not to use it, and scholars across the islands in both jurisdictions agree that it is problematic. That is clearly notable and its inclusion as a minor section or brieft mention in the intro is hardly undue weight - for heavens sake we have a whole article on it and you don't want it mentioned here??? --sony-youth^pléigh 12:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that because they live in a separate "jurisdiction", the population of ROI have some 15 times greater voting power than that of the UK? That, I'm afraid, is poppycock, and indicates your bias, not mine. 1 in 15 is a large enough minority opinion to be mentioned in the article, but not in the intro in the way that you're suggesting. TharkunColl 13:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia is not a democracy and NPOV for systemic bias towards Anglo-American focus before throwing numbers around. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Ireland was among the "European Anglophone" countries, so the systemic bias policy would work against Irish POV, as well as British (go and read what it says, if you don't know what I'm talking about). The Wikipedia policy I am attempting to adhere to here is Wikipedia:Undue weight. TharkunColl 13:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Undue weight" is not applicable. Many prominent and even eminent authorities mention the controversy and it's not given undue weight in the article anyway. 83.39.134.72 14:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They are related issues in my book, both pertains to a systematic bias in editor interests. Comments such as "15:1" betray that you are concerned little about misrepresenting the weight of the matter. That there may be 15 times more people in the UK compared to Ireland says nothing about the weight of the issue. This is not a minority view held by a handful of flat-earthers, but one acknowledged and understood by authorities across our islands. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Channel Islands again

Just reading the archives. On the subject of the Channel Islands (to open a can of worms again). Are the French Channel Islands in the British Isles or not? If not, why not? They don't seem any less "adjacent" to Britain than the British Channel Islands. 83.39.134.72 14:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Can of worms, indeed. The trick is in the name, "British" Isles, that doesn't include the French CI. --sony-youth^pléigh 14:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems much too clear-cut an answer! I suspect the real answer depends on the context being applied. Geographically, I would say that no Channel Islands are in the British Isles. Politically, I would not dare to give an opinion. Bazza 15:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, tired, and the obvious passed me by, but by that measure, the Republic would certainly not be in the British Isles. --sony-youth^pléigh 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And then we come back to dictionaries - are there two definitions, one marked geo. and the other marked pol.? Assuming, that is, that geography can be imagined without politics - if it could there would surely be little contention to calling these the European Isles :) ? Maybe, in time Les îles Bruxellieque? --sony-youth^pléigh 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

seems we're becoming too fixed on logic here. Whether you agree with the term or not, the term "British Isles" refers to that which the users of the term mean it to refer to. While a circular argument is not encyclopedic it does reflect real life: British Chanel islands are part of British Isles, French ones are not. IdreamofJeanie 16:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also cultural factors of course. The CI share in the general culture of the BI, unlike the French islands. This culture was originally determined by an accident of political geography hundreds of years ago, but is no less real for that. Besides, the parties to the NI agreement have recognised the CI as having a legitimate right to sit in the BI council, and they are part of the Common Travel Area - two political manifestations of a shared BI identity. TharkunColl 18:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought the BIs were supposed to be merely a neutral geographical term?! (Sarah777 20:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

No, its quite clear that they have political significance, as Tark pointed out. However, in the forums mentioned, they are never actually referred to as the British Isles, which makes that term quite a peculiarity - not referring to a consistent geographical entity (as it includes the Channel Islands) and not referring to a political entity either (as the term is avoided in that context). --sony-youth^pléigh 21:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. The term is not a purely geographical one. It also refers to a shared culture and language. Some might dislike the way that such a shared culture and language has come about, but we are all products of history. TharkunColl 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can buy into that. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't. The shared culture justification has been adequately disposed of here previously. We share 99% of the genetic make-up of chimps; yet we aren't chimps. (I am not implying the British are) It's the 1% difference makes a German, French or Irishman as distinct from a Briton. (Sarah777 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

It's just a question of degree. Europeans are similar to each other in comparison to the rest of the world, and people from the BI are similar to each other in comparison to the rest of Europe. Out of the three examples you gave, Irishmen are obviously a lot closer to Britons than are the French or Germans. They speak the same language for a start off, which is a very important part of culture. I suggest that the resistance to this obvious notion amongst some is motivated by politics (yet again). TharkunColl 06:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

To a large extent I agree, but the reason I 'bought into' your comment above was because of the last line ("we are all products of history"). Both you and I (and Sarah), Tark. In counter argument, I would say that your desire for the notion is similarly motivated by politics, if you were to be honest with yourself. The truth probaly lies half-way in between. Did I post this before? A map of "European ethnic culture areas" from Britannica. What sources do you point to that all of peoples of the British Isles are more similar to each other than to other European people? I'm open to the idea (greyhound racing, snooker, English language, etc. are nice examples), but references would do better especially when the people of the area hold so ardently to national identies of Scottish, Welsh, Manx, etc. and when "British" (or even Anglo-Celtic) is in a minority. --sony-youth^pléigh 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a very odd map - it claims that Greece is more similar in culture to, say, Moldavia, than Cornwall is to Devon! I think my arguments here are more motivated by anti-politics than politics, and a wish to stem the degradation of language by political correctness. TharkunColl 11:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Politics/anti-politics, freedom fighter/terrorist, double-think/reeducation ... ... ... So it is that "we are all products of history", except TharkunColl?

The map does not say anything about the closeness of relationships between cultural area nor how homogenous any specific area is. Common misconception. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't either. It's purely geographic, not human geography which is completely separate to standard geography. The politics and history should have no impact or impulse on the term. It's like central Asia, Australasia, or the Alps. Just a geographical formation. Ben W Bell talk 06:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't buy into that either. If nothing else, there was practically no shared language in the 17th century, when the term was first used. AFAIK, English only became the clearly dominant language in Ireland in the second half of the 19th century. Did the term "British Isles" only come to make sense in the late 19th century? Additionally, the idea of a uniquely "shared culture" is largely supported by British ignorance of Irish culture and British desire for cultural separateness from Europe. Not even that archetypal British figure of the recent past, the lager lout, was exclusive. Lots of northern European countries had them. There's lots of shared culture, but the cultural similarity isn't much stronger across the Irish Sea than it is across the English Channel - and to say that the CI share in a general culture of the BI is indicative of extensive ignorance about CI culture. There are nice WP articles about it. 83.39.134.72 09:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be the intention, Ben, but use is nowhere near as black and white as that. Toponyms are notoriously political at times, even where the user does not hold the politics themselves; the context of language cannot be so simply disengaged. Indeed, all of those terms you quote - or Australasia and Central Asia at least - could potentially offend (or at least p**s off) certain people if used in certains ways or to describe bordering countries. --Pretty Green 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Actually, that got me looking at terms, and they have quite a neat and simplistic map at Central Asia. Why don't we do something similar? We could have Great Britain (+ IoM/IoW etc) coloured in darkest as 'always included', Ireland as slightly lighter for 'standard definition but sometimes excluded' and Channel Islands in something else to indicate 'ambiguous relationship but often included'. I'm just thinking out loud here and this could probably be refined but, if done well, could be effective. --Pretty Green 08:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't be so bad, I've been pondering how to appraoch a demographics and ethnicity section. Overlapping of ENG/SCO/etc., UK/RoI, British Islands, British Isles would be nice. Would the "Celtic fringe" be going too far? NI (or at least the north-east of NI, see [Image:Europe_religion_map_en.png here]) could be shaded mixed British/Scottish/Irish etc. Maybe too the traditional religious boundaries (Catholicism in Ireland, Presbyterianism in Scotland, Methodism in Wales, Anglicanism in England, etc.) could be marked. Maybe that would conflate too many things. Also thinking aloud. We also need a population denisity map, as it is very defining (preferably on a county and burough level). --sony-youth^pléigh 09:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a terminology map is a great idea (British Isles / British Islands / United Kingdom / RoI / (etc.)), but think the map should stop there, mainly for practical reasons. Aside from the sheer complexity, there's so much movement and rapid change in demographics that keeping the map up to date would be quite a task. Also, if you went down the religious route you'd also open up yet another can of worms. (England may be historically Anglican but how many people in England attend Anglican churches today? Arguably England is also historically Catholic and Pagan, depending which bit of history you're looking at and who was monarch at the time.) Best not go there!-- Waggers 10:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, religion is proably a bit to far! But for "there's so much movement and rapid change in demographics" - oh, come now, ethnicity (with the exception of "British", if you count that) has been pretty stable since the Plantation of Ulster and the population density split likewise since the the turn of the 20th century. Breaking the UK down into ENG/SCO/WAL/NI would be easy. Adding Cornwall and showing the Celtic fringe, wouldn't be a break from concentric circles but not impossible and need not be complex. Hatching could show population density and the whole thing could show a grand overview of the "people" of the British Isles. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever about the number of practicing Anglicans, England is constitutionally Anglican. It is - to quote someone else - a "sectarian state". It has constitutional laws against Catholics becoming or marrying the head of state. That's just a simple fact.

However, on the Channel Islands. It would be difficult (but apparently not impossible) to seriously assert that they're in any mono-cultural region with - for instance - Middlesborough, or Belfast or the moors of Yorkshire (aaay lad, them Jersey folk are our kin laike). Since their physical geography is that they're a part of the Cotentin Peninsula and they're separated from the south coast of England by the English Channel, I ask again..."why are they called 'British Isles'". When did this happen? Have they always been in? Did they migrate in at some later stage? 83.39.134.72 11:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

They were part of the Duchy of Normandy, Duke William of which conquered England in 1066 (and the Normans, of course, later invaded Wales, Ireland, and - less successfully - Scotland). King John lost Normandy to the Kingdom of France in 1204, but retained control of the offshore islands. His descendants have retained control of them ever since (except for a brief period in WW2). They are not legally a dependency of the British state (unlike, say, the Falklands), but the British parliament, on behalf of the monarch, can legislate for them under certain specific circumstances - though it has apparently not done so for many decades. Oh, sorry... did you want an actual answer to your question, or was it just a ham-fisted attempt to make some sort of point? TharkunColl 14:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wanted an answer to the question. 83.39.134.72 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Quick answer - its because the British Isles refers to the former geo-political entity now known as the British Islands. The term British Isles is kept alive (and British Islands sufficiently similar sounding in order to conflate with it) so that the UK can pretend to be in control of the greater part of Ireland, in much the same way that the Commonwealth assuages the sensitivities of the British populous about the loss of the Empire. See a discussion I'm just having on Extreme points of the United Kingdom, where its the popular belief that including Dunquin, County Kerry is "useful extra information"!) --sony-youth^pléigh 14:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not so we can pretend to be in control of Ireland! The majority of British people would jettison NI in half a second given the chance - Ireland, a problem bequeathed to us by the Normans (who conquered us, remember), has been a millstone around England's neck for centuries and centuries, and still is. I for one would welcome a united Ireland in which the British government had no involvement whatsoever. But the term British Isles has got nothing to do with this. TharkunColl 14:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your chronology is completely out of sync with history. The Normans invaded England in 1066. In 1169 a confederation of Normans invaded Ireland under Enlish command (Henry II) at the beshest of the King of Leinster. That was not an invasion of conquest but fell to the English crown (specifically the English crown, not Norman) through accident. If the English wanted out of Ireland, they would have had an easy time of it in the 16th century when the overwhelimng majority of the country was back under Gaelic control, but Henry VIII, followed by Elizibeth I, invaded again for the purpose of re-conquest.

Referring specifically to NI, that issue dates from this era and was an entirly English plan of plantation whereby English and low-land Scottish settlers were planted in Ulster specifically for the purpose of quelling Irish resistance to English rule through greater numbers and sectarianism, the legislation for which was enacted for Ireland directly from Westminster. That policy continued unabated for a two centuries, only become slowly dismantled in the mid-19th century, and the social and economic damage that it caused only being relieved, in the country as a whole, towards the later-end of that century. At no time, however, was the issue of the bitterness and hightened sectarianism in Ulster addressed seriously until only very recent years - 400 years after it has been inacted.

The term British Isles (in the English language) dates specifically from the era of these events - the completion of the Reconquest and the Plantation of Ulster - and to the time when the British monarch was the monarch of all of those plances today included under the term. Attempting to subtract it from its political history is futile, as are attempts to pass of the English conquest and subsequent sectarianism in Ireland on the Normans. (The Normans, in fact, in Ireland, or as they were later known as the "Old English", have in fact very little bad press.) --sony-youth^pléigh 15:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I know Henry II was King of England, but he was also Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy and very much a continental and a Norman frenchman. I also seem to recall, correct me if I'm wrong, that the Pope ordered him to invade Ireland, something to do with re-integrating the Celtic Church into Roman Catholicism? Ah, the rich veins of history and the despair of putting modern interpretations on long-forgotten motives! MarkThomas 20:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it's a distortion to say that "the Pope ordered him to invade Ireland." The Pope (an Englishman at the time, btw) wrote a Papal Bull authorizing the English monarchy to claim sovereignty over Ireland, but that is not the same as ordering an invasion. I have never read any historical source that defines the invasion of Ireland by the Normans/English/Anglo-Normans (whatever you want to call them) as motived (much less solely motivated) by obedience to the Pope's "orders." The Papal Bull is usually referenced as a justification, but I've never heard any historian claim that it was THE reason. In any event (as Sony pointed out), the more recent (and, in some respects, more meaningful) conquest of Ireland done by the Tudors can neither be explained in terms of obedience to the pope nor were the Tudors Normans. (I'm also think calling the Irish church of the 12th century the "Celtic Church" is a bit off.)

oh, and, btw, for a random bit of sharing: I got into a debate with someone recently who insisted that all Irish people can be classed as British because (and I quote) "they are from the British Isles." Mon dieu! :-)) Nuclare 01:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so! On my Irish side all four great-grandparents had "Norman names" . Not an "O" or a "Mac" anywhere! (Sarah777 00:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, apart from comparing the virtue of each other's ancestry...back to the Channel Islands. I was looking at a German atlas over the weekend. There was a page for the "Britische Inseln", and the Channel Islands were not shown. There were those cut out boxes for Orkney and Shetland but nothing for the Channel Islands. Are they always shown? Have they been included for long, for ever? 83.38.56.255 15:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As part of a discussion elsewhere I found this on Google books, a school book from 1863. Searching on Google books, it seems that the terms "British Islands" and "British Isles" were used interchangeably for most of its history, even post Irish independence. At what point the separated - one becoming "purely geographic", the other retaining its legal definition - or even if they really have (see this, written in 1990 about WWII), I can't tell. What it does explain however is why the Channel Islands are a part of the archipelago; namely because the term didn't refer to an archipelago per sé, however, the split between the two terms, that once were the same term, puts the Channel Islands in an anachronous position - or is it the term that's anachronous? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That reference was interesting Sony. I do seem to recall that it always used to be called the "British Islands" and was referred to as such in early editions of Britannica, although I don't own one so can't check. It would be interesting as you say to know when the terms split - might have been some sort of policy act by HMG to do that. MarkThomas 20:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"British Islands" was used in legal texts in at least 1867 (specifically in relation to Jersey in this text). How do you interpret page 102, is the section quoted that mentions "British islands" from the 1839 text? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

1839 looks positive. This refers to continuing the same act for another 6 months into 1840 and uses "British Islands" (again in relation to Jersey). At a guess it looks old and common place a legal term, the current definition being solely an update of it. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Cart before horse: in 1863, the two terms were interchangeable. One thing that has been established is that British Isles is used loosely to define all sorts of combinations of islands, which is not a surprise as it has no legal meaning. Again, despite the chuntering, if the early references are actually read you will see that the term comes from the ancient Britons and has nothing to do with the modern British state (unless you are a fan of underarching unconscious subtexts in historical geography). Again looking at the early texts is interesting with respect to the Channel Isles: many excluded them, others did, but as far as my memory goes, they are included because the author couldn't think where else to put them. The British Islands thing is a bit of a red herring: it does have a legal meaning, but usage is not determined by legal definitions (and it does not predate British Isles anyway). The idea that organisations such as the Met Office are asserting English imperial control over Ireland is, frankly, silly. It is clear that British Isles means different things to different people at different times, and the job of an encyclopaedia is to record them, not try to declare a winner. It would be nice if people would concentrate on some content at some time: the natural history is particularly interesting, I have wanted to write something about that for ages, but the demands of the outside world have prevented me. MAG1 21:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much agree, but trying to divide Islands from Isles (unless I've read you wrong) is artificial. How would you translate the Greek of Ptolemy? Did he say Isles of Islands? But what the above references were about was specifically the Channel Islands and the use of British Islands (as opposed to "Isles") was solely because they were interchangeable (in my opinion) at that time. If you have refs that exclude them then I'd love to see them. I haven't come across a ref that specifically excluded them (except through neglect, but I don't think that neglect on the part of some authors is enough to say that they are "sometime in, sometimes out"). --sony-youth^pléigh 22:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

All this stuff is original research and synthesis (and a waste of time). You have to distinguish between general usage and legal usage. General usage - British Isles used as a vague label for the island group, British Islands used hardly ever but with exactly the same meaning, no strict definition of the terms, as they aren't used in contexts where the inclusion or exclusion of Rockall, Channel Islands etc is important. Legal usage in UK - British Isles never used, British Islands used as a specific term for UK plus Channel Islands since at least the Interpretation Act of 1889, with the Interpretation Act of 1978 clarifying that 'British Islands' doesn't include the Republic of Ireland (sic).There is really no need for all the googling...--86.142.252.219 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Which reference was original research? Was it when I answered the question, "Have the [the Channel Islands] been included for long ... ?" by referring to a 19th century school atlas that explicitly lists them? Or was it when I answered the comment "It would be interesting as you say to know when the terms [British Isles and British Islands] split [such that one formed a legal context and the other a general term]" by pointing to 1839 legal text that defined British Islands in a legal context, demonstrating that British Islands has a long legal use? --sony-youth^pléigh 00:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> So now the term "British Isles" is a "vague label"? I'm sure someone here used to insist it was a clearly defined geographical term with no possibility of ambiguity or dissent. Now it's become a "vague label". Also, apparently BI can include Rockall? (Rockall is about as geographically connected to Britain and Ireland as the Faroes or Iceland, so any inclusion of Rockall is pure political). Who is including who of original research? Meantime, for Sony, the Encarta definition excludes the Channel Islands, as they are not separated from Europe by the English Channel or the North Sea. 83.38.56.255 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Rockall and the so-called "vague label", my thought exactly. Where this "vague label" talk came from, I don't know. As for Encarta: Encarta explicity includes the Channel Islands (see here). To quote: "British Isles, archipelago, north-eastern Atlantic Ocean, near continental Europe, from which it is separated by the North Sea, the Strait of Dover, and the English Channel. It consists of the large islands of Great Britain and Ireland; several island groups, namely, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands, the Hebrides, and the Channel Islands." This is further substantiated by their article on the Channel Islands. There is no vagueness in the term that I can find, regardless of what Sarah believes below. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Encarta. Have a look at their dictionary definition. http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/british%2520isles.html. Again, the Channel Islands are not separated from mainland Europe by the English Channel. Otherwise it would be correct to say that the Isle of Wight was separated from England by the English Channel, which would be daft! Encarta may need to revisit their definitions or their editing. On the definition "adjacent", islands off the coast of Zeeland are just as "adjacent" to Britain as the CI are, yet are not included. Hmmm political geography rears its head. In any case, the refs from Sony give solid citation back to the 1800s. Anyone got any better? 83.38.56.255 10:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Its purely political geography. There's no other way around it, but that doesn't make it bad or unjustified. Reading too much into "adjacent" or "seperated by the English Channel" is no good. Find me a reference that explicity excludes the Channel Islands. If the "adjacent" or "seperated by the English Channel" 'rule' is so strict, or even supposed to be interpreted like that, then surely there must be some out there. The fact is, its not intended to be a mathematical formula. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Going a bit off topic here, but I'll reply anyway... Encarta may need to revisit their definitions or their editing - yes, but what does that have to do with us? The Isle of Wight is separated from England by the River Solent, not by the English Channel. Again, the Channel Islands are not separated from mainland Europe by the English Channel. In that case, what body of water does separate the Channel Islands from mainland Europe? Waggers 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment on Encarta's definition is a comment...not an entry on the article. As for the Solent, it's not a river. It's salt water, always salt water and it's part of the sea. There is flow into it from rivers, and it may once have been a river, but calling it a river now is a wild leap. (quote from a geology paper; "The Solent River no longer exists") It was a river at the same time that the straits of Dover were dry land. As for what's between the Channel Islands and France, generally it seems to be parts of the Gulf of St Malo. See http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/lgcolor/channelcolor.htm .

I would guess that the specific stretches of water have names, but apart from the Race of Alderney (well known to sailors) which is between Alderney and France, I don't know. However, I REALLY doubt that people "cross the English Channel" to go from Jersey to the Cotentin peninsula. Besides, if that Encarta definition were to really include the Channel islands on a purely geographic basis, it would also include the French Channel Islands...which it apparently doesn't. 83.38.56.255 12:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So Encarta's definition is self-contradictory - not our problem. But you can't claim the Solent to be part of the English Channel and in the same argument claim that the Gulf of St Malo isn't. People don't cross the English Channel to get from England to the Isle of Wight any more than they cross the English Channel to go from Jersey to the Cotentin peninsula. You really can't have it both ways.

As has already been discussed to death, the term British Isles, when used to include the Channel Islands, is not a purely physical geographical term. So what? Waggers 12:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm NOT trying to have it both ways. I'm saying that if one doesn't cross the English Channel to go from England to the Isle of Wight then one also doesn't cross the English Channel to go from Jersey to France, therefore Jersey isn't "separated from mainland Europe by the English Channel." In any case, if the term "British Isles" is a term of political geography, should this article not say so? It currently doesn't. 83.38.56.255 12:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition is seperated from the European mainland, not from England. If you have to cross the Channel to get to Wright or Jersey from England its irrevelent. It getting there from the European mainland that matters, and between Jersey and the French mainland coast there is a definite stretch of the English Channel that must be crossed in order to get to Jersey.

In any case, debating the merits of crossing one sea or another is irrevelent. We can see, with our eyes, that they are included. Why are we getting hung up on the semantics of a definition with two possible outcomes when one of those outcomes is flatly contradicted by the same source (Encarta dictionary vs. Encarta encyclopedia)? --sony-youth^pléigh 13:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So, Britain is "separated from the mainland of Europe by the Atlantic Ocean". I'm interested in this because I'm interested. The definition "separated from one thing by another" is - in my view - inconsistent with being on the same side of the separating element as the thing that you're supposed to be separated from. The Channel Islands are on the same side of the English Channel as France so I would never say they were separated from France by the English channel. However, that is only my view. I don't think I'm wrong in terms of language and I can't fix Encarta having a lousy definition, but it's important to understand what the Encarta definition means. 83.38.56.255 15:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We live on a sphere, Britain is seperated from mainland Europe in any number of directions.

Regarding your view from England, I would suggest moving. If I stand on a certain beach in France and look north, in the distance I may be able to see the Channel Islands. In between me and them will be a stretch of water. I must cross that water to get to them. I am seperated from them by it. What is the name of that water?

It is a lousy definition, I agree, but short of listing the major island locations (as the OED does), its a hard one to define succinctly.--sony-youth^pléigh 15:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

<reduce indent> In Alderney's case I'd be looking across the "Alderney Race". That's what separates Alderney from France. That's the name of the piece of water. In Jersey's case it's in the middle of the Gulf of St.Malo. I don't know if the piece of water has a name. In either case the Encarta definition appears to be REALLY sloppy. 83.38.56.255 15:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It the standard one, and it is lously. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me to hear that Encarta has this wrong, it's wrong in detail in plenty of others and isn't IMO a trustworthy source for WP. Going back to the issue, I must confess to have gotten a bit lost in the maze of this particular discussion. Can someone recap the key issues please? Is it that there is debate about Channel Islands being part of the British Isles? I find that puzzling - generally I always believed that the Channel Islands were loosely affiliated to Britain politically whilst being geographically associated with France. Isn't that the general view? MarkThomas 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No certainly not. The OED explicitly includes them. Debate is about other dictionary definitions (not encyclopedias, which explicitly include them), especially what is meant by "adjacent" to Great Britain or Ireland or "separated" from mainland Europe by the English Channel. I have yet to see use of the British Isles that specifically exclude the Channel Islands. All authoritative sources include them from what I see. Where they are not included, to me, it appears like neglect. Likewise maps, atlases etc. historical use, etc.etc. Are there any refs that exclude them? Or solid refs that they are "optional"? --sony-youth^pléigh 19:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen atlases where they are not included. I'd have to go find the atlases again, but the Channel Islands were certainly not shown as part of the British Isles. 83.38.56.255 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood what the issue is. If you are right Sony-youth, and I am not disputing that you are, then you are also quite right that the article should have them as included. I must admit to not having noticed such definitions before, I will go away and check the reference works I have to see what they say and report back. If others do the same, I should think we can reach an informed consensus. MarkThomas 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Another reference for the sake of it: "The British Isles is a geographical term describing the group of islands off the north-west coast of mainland Europe. It is the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, plus the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands." Rick Thompson, Writing for Broadcast Journalists --sony-youth^pléigh 20:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In case any finds the info useful: the stretch of water between the Channel Islands (mostly Jersey) and the Cotentin, and between Jersey and Sark, is La Déroute. Man vyi 08:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vague Label

I think now that Sony has conceded that "British Isles" is a vague label he might just take the short step to conceding that it doesn't include Ireland in the legal or colloquial sense. Progress at last? "I don't think that neglect on the part of some authors is enough to say that they are "sometime in, sometimes out")" - Disagree. Definitely a case of "sometimes out " I think! (Sarah777 09:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Exactly when did I "concede" any such thing? Please re-read my posts above. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, please talk about the article and contributions, not contributors. We're not here to discuss Sony's point of view, nor to persuade him to change it. Waggers 09:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. We are here to discuss Sarah :) --sony-youth^pléigh 10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to your tireless efforts I am getting used to being discussed ♥!(Sarah777 11:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Only happy to help. Anyway, what was it Oscar said? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Madison or Wilde? (Sarah777 11:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Apologies Sony, it was 86.142.252.219. So, no progress then. Waggers, I was really talking to Sony rather than about him. I will be more careful with my syntax in future. Regards (Sarah777 09:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

This is a relief Waggers. I also was beginning to feel like Wikipedia exists to rebut Sarah777. I'm glad to discover there is more to it. Also, Sarah, do you ever take a rest from your keyboard? I'm asking on a friendly basis. :-) MarkThomas 18:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Old territory (apologies)

I came across this quote today: "[The insertion or reinsertion of the hyphen between British and Irish in British-Irish Council] also challenges a burgeoning Anglo-Saxon-Cornish-Welsh British (British being derived from the Brythonic Prydein under Tudor influence) hegemony of the 16th century which felt free to name these isles 'British', and which later, at times, wanted to rename the Catholic Irish as West Britons." (From The British-Irish Council: the trans-islands symbolic and political possibilities.)

It got my mind onto the topic of the link drawn between the Greco-Roman Britannica Insula and the modern British Isles as the origin of the term. While this links has gradually worn down to being merely implicit in this article (although explicit in the terminology article), are there any references to support the link, or is it just original research and "common knowledge"? --sony-youth^pléigh 22:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sony. It's been quiet here. I'm not quite sure I understand your question/point. Could you rephrase? (Sorry if i'm being obtuse, but I don't see what you're asking). Hughsheehy 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article seems pretty complex on this issue now, but it does clearly say "The Oxford English Dictionary states that the first published use in English of "British Isles" was in 1621 " (was that one of your edits Sony?) so isn't that enough clarity? It would be a shame to lose some of the interesting history about early names for "These Islands". MarkThomas 16:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've no intention of removing any of the early stuff. I think its great. What I'm pointing to are especially the first two paragraphs of the "British Isles" section. There is nothing overtly false in the section, but for an eye following the dates (and not up to speed with the order of succession of British monarch), it appears like a neat transition from 1136 - where we have Bede appearing to like a mini-renaissance, seeking a (re-)"unified Britannia" through use of old Roman terms (in fact he's referring solely to the lower part of the larger island) after nearly a millennium of darkness - to 1300 to 1409 to 1550 to 1564 to 1570 to 1577 to 1621.

Additionally, some of the reference do not support their assertions (such as "This spread Ptolemy's naming of Hibernia and Albion as Island[s] of Britannia.") Some of the statements are quite POV in their choice of language (although technically accurate) - Ptolomey's maps, which reintroduce the equivalents of 'British Isles' after a millennium of disuse, for example, brought "new insight" and Mercator maps, that used similar terms, were "more accurate" than his contemporaries.

I'm writing here because I don't want to go tinkering without warning others what my intentions are, and neither do I want to open a discussion because I know where that could lead. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Following on from the previous discussion on the merger, I am having a go at shortening that whole section. It's just taking me a lot longer than I had hoped. I'm trying to make it shorter without changing the meaning or sense. Not so easy. Hughsheehy 07:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC on User MarkThomas

With great regret (because it's a pain in the a** to prepare) I've created an RFC on user MarkThomas. Since part of the history has been here, it seems reasonable to notify it here. [17] Hughsheehy 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A small request

Last night a new user posted a message here registering their objection to the term "British Isles." We all know that the term is considered obnoxious in Ireland and so it should have come as no surprise to anyone. The appropriate response from British editors would have been to feign an apology, say that they are aware of the offense that the term causes, but explain that we are bound by the rules of Wikipedia to call it such. The incorrect response would have been "Nah, nah, nah-nah-nah!" Unfortunately, the latter appears to have been how the message was handled.

I'd ask that British editors please hold back from responding to posts in this way. We all know where they lead. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Channel Islands again again!

I see that since I looked last, the article has acquired a sensible disambiguation intro, drawing attention to the political definition "British Islands", leaving this article to concentrate on the geography and geology of the archepelago. All very sensible. But I see that the Channel Islands are still included in the infobox, although they are clearly not part of the archepelago. Geographically and geologically, they are part of the landmass that is now France. Emphatically, they are British Islands, but they are not part of the British Isles in its apolitical meaning. I hate to have stir this up again, but we have to be consistent. [The article should have a short para explaining their status, but they should not be in the info box]. Is there a broad consensus for this view? --Red King 22:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree Red. Clearly not part of the British Isles in any geographical sense; and Ireland is included on the basis that the offensive (to many Irish people) term "British Isles" is purely geographical and has no other meaning. So, on the grounds of consistency, the Channel Islands lying just off the French coast cannot be considered part of any geographical "British Isles". To argue for the inclusion of both Ireland AND the Channel Isles is obviously pure POV, which has no place in Wiki. (Sarah777 00:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

Or perhaps the map showing the location of the "British Isles" could be updated to include the Channel Isles and it would be obvious that the "standard" definition of "British Isles" is political and not geographic. Does anyone have an SVG editor that could do the job? Hughsheehy 11:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to class the British Isles purely as a political or geographical entity. The inclusion of Ireland is probably based on geography, not politics; the inclusion of the Channel Islands is probably based on politics, not geography. Nevertheless, the fact remains that many (and, probably, the majority of) sources include both in their definition. Since Wikipedia is built upon "verifiability not truth", that means our definition includes both too. It's not a geographical definition, it's not a political definition, it's a verifiable definition - and as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that's all that matters. Waggers 15:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes - between some sections wanting Ireland (or at least the greater part thereof) out, and other's wanting the poor Channel Islands out, we are in danger of inventing a Wikism consisting solely of the United Kingdom, Isle of Man and Sealand. Sorry, Hugh, I said that I would do that for you - what can I say ... Summer? --sony-youth^pléigh 21:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I'd have thought the fact that the Irish Government has caused the deletion of any reference to Ireland being a "British Isle" in school books is "verification" that the term doesn't apply to Ireland. (Sarah777 22:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

High, I updated the image. It was a PNG though, so I did a "highlight" job rather than a "circle" job. Does it look okay? --sony-youth^pléigh 09:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's vague. Doesn't line up with your oft expressed view that there's nothing vague about the definitions of what's in and what's not in the definition. A version with a line would be far preferable. Hughsheehy 14:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn you, Hugh! Circles are a pain in the ass to draw in GIMP/Photoshop - but for you ... How do you suggest - a "blow out" zoomin in (otherwise IoM and CI area always going to be hard to see.) A circle is tough too because it is going to cut into northern Frace to take in the CI. --sony-youth^pléigh 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for an svg version, but didn't. Find me a svg version of the image and i'll have a go with inkscape. Part of the reason a line is needed/important is that it is NOT a neat circle or oval. Hughsheehy 15:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Atlantic Isles

I notice this article: The Atlantic Isles. Comments? Man vyi 15:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Never realised this article existed; a much better article than the current one. maybe I'll transfer my interest in Ireland's geographical location to an article which isn't named for a political pov! (Sarah777 16:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

That's because it didn't exist until today, and won't last long either, as it is blatantly political and unsupported. And in any case, what about the Azores, Canaries, etc. etc.? TharkunColl 16:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't understand the reference to the Canaries and Azores. How is the Atlantic Isles "unsupported"? It has a mass of references, links etcetera. What is the problem with it? (Sarah777 17:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

It's a clear POV fork and contravenes Wikipedia:Naming conventions. In the unlikely event that someone might search for it it's been made into a redirect rather than being deleted. .. dave souza, talk 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you should have redirected it to The British Isles and Ireland rather than The Brtish Isles in order to avoid POV? (Sarah777 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

That would only create a double-redirect, which (a) wouldn't work until it was corrected, and (b) would be corrected to a redirect to British Isles by the cleanup project and/or a bot. Besides, the British Isles includes Ireland so the term "The British Isles and Ireland" is nonsense (and incidentally not a synonym for "The Atlantic Isles" which, taken at face value, should include Iceland, the Falklands, arguably the Caribbean islands and many more besides). Waggers 08:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

But we were told just above by YOU that the BIs is neither a political nor geographical term!!! Some consistency, please. It may not be an overly used term but the "Atlantic Isles" is not "all the islands in the Atlantic" anymore than the BIs are "all the islands in Britain". It is one of a small number of POV-free alternative names for the so-called (by some in Britain) "British Isles". (Sarah777 09:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

In fact, if the folk determined to impose a political POV term on these islands didn't keep deleting the article you could read what the Atlantic Islands are - rather than having to make uninformed statements about them. That is what censorship leads to, you are actually a victim of censorship. You should oppose it for your own sake rather than embrace it. (Sarah777 09:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

I have to say that some! british editors on here have no patience to wikipedias cost, they simply see an attempt to overshadow a offensive(to some)name they might use over what others around the world do, people live in places outside of your little world of britain you know, i was attempting to alter the atlantic Isles page in order that it mainly dicussed the term as the IONA page(which is not blocked) does but as i stated i was using the template of this page to start but of course the article was deleted and i can not now alter it.Caomhan27 10:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The "Atlantic Islands" article described the British Isles, and had an illustrative map of the British Isles too. To maintain the integrity of Wikipedia we only have one article per subject. The article for these islands is British Isles. The deletion of an article with a different title on the same subject is not censorship; any relevant (verifiable) information in that article that isn't in this one should be added here. An article on the term "Atlantic Islands" itself would be permissible if it satisfies WP:N and has enough information to warrant a separate article from British Isles naming dispute and British Isles (terminology) - but the "Atlantic Islands" article was about the British Isles, not about the term "Atlantic Islands". Finally, the determination is to abide by Wikipedia policy (ie. to use the most commonly used English language name), not "to impose a political POV term on these islands". Please assume good faith. Waggers 11:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. But I can't say why because THEY are watching me! (Sarah777 11:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

It was about the atlantic isles it happened to have mostly the same information as this article to begin with, but as i said it was just using it as a template(in very few areas) to start my work, but it was blocked before i could change it sufficiently even though i outlined this, and again IONA has its own unblocked page as the atlantic isles page should be in order that the term and its origions and what it relates to briefly can be discussed as the IONA page. You raise a good point though as i have no interest in adding to an article like this one which offends the sensitivities of myself and many other people and i am sure other people who feel likewise will not either, its a pity when we could have a inclusive article under a neutral heading but i guess thats to much to ask of some.Caomhan27 11:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Caomhan27, feel free to create a draft article and modify it in your user space (say at User:Caomhan27/Atlantic Islands). Let me know when you feel it's ready, and I'll help you move it into the encyclopaedia proper. But if you're looking to use an existing article as a template for a terminology article, wouldn't another terminology article (such as Islands of the North Atlantic) be more suitable than the British Isles article? Waggers 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

oh right good idea i should have done that instead, still learning the ropes around hereCaomhan27 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We live and learn I guess. I started an article on "The British Isles and Ireland" using the same method and ended up being persecuted by the Povians. First through an RfC which fell flat 'cos the majority rejected the Povian stance; then I got dragged into an Arbcom (arising from a dispute I wasn't even involved in!) So, beware. (Sarah777 19:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

will do sarah, now i know "THEY" are watchingCaomhan27 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! The red link around your name has gone - Good move; everyone should have a userpage and everyone should be made to register....!(Sarah777 06:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

That's an... interesting... interpretation of events. And very much a case of pot, kettle, black. You are the one who created the PoV-fork, after all. Which kinda means you are the "Povian"? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

C, your page is an article...THE article; better check out the Wiki policies on user pages; my previous one featured quite a bit in my indictment. Remember the Safe Cross Code...left, right, before you cross the road (Sarah777 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Bastun, WP:NPA please. I am neither a "black pot" nor a Povian. (Sarah777 06:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

I wondered how long it would take the TLA's to appear. Its ok for you to accuse others of pushing a PoV, but its a personal attack to point out you've done the same? Don't think so... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Key difference; I didn't single out any named editor - you simply attacked me. And any fair reading of my comment would detect an attempt at humour. But maybe that isn't the play here? (Sarah777 21:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

ArbCom violation

Leading from the ArbCom involving SirFozzie, Domer48, Sarah777, MarkThomas and myself a ruling was reached whereby, "Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks." I have reported the above comments by Sarah as an example of her continued disruption of this and related articles and attacks on British editors. Your opinions are welcome. --sony-youth^pléigh 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you were right in the Arbcom noticeboard to ask for guidelines on it Sony-youth, it isn't very clear what the ruling means in practice. One could for example draw attention to Sarah777's statement above "I'll transfer my interest in Ireland's geographical location to an article which isn't named for a political pov!" which clearly contains an element of "anti-British" ness. It's relieving for someone like myself of British heritage to see an agenda of regarding "anti-British" statements as against Wikipedianism, as it often seems to be open house on the Brits on Wikipedia generally. Now we need some clear enforcement rules and practical application of them. Can I add that it's also very good to see someone who strongly understands and vigorously defends both Irish intellectual positions and viewpoints such as yourself Sony-youth nevertheless taking a clear-sighted approach to negative-minded editing even when the source of that editing style claims Irishness? Thanks. MarkThomas 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'll transfer my interest in Ireland's geographical location to an article which isn't named for a political pov!" Tut tut, what an absolutely terrible thing to say! Maybe we should have some ban on "anti-Irish" remarks; that would leave Sony and the Povians pretty speechless I guess. And they don't seem to have much else to say, really. (Sarah777 17:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

Please provide an example of an "anti-Irish" statement by Sony-youth, as you have just alleged, Sarah777. MarkThomas 17:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Following on your "thinking" Mark I believe his resolute attempts to defend calling Ireland a "British Isle" "clearly contains an element of "anti-Irishness". OK? Now, you may post again and ask me anything you wish; I am not going to reply. Ciao (Sarah777 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC))

I can see why you wouldn't want to reply Sarah777, as I can't think of a single place where Sony-youth has ever made such an assertion. This appears sadly to be yet another example of distortion on Sarah777's part, taking things out of context for dubious point-scoring, etc. Note the absolute final warning that Waggers has given Sarah777 on the Arbcom enforcement page. MarkThomas 08:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I know I said I'd not reply to you but, heck, rules are made to be broken as you'd say yourself. So, two points:

(1) I have supplied the example you asked for; I can't be held responsible for your failure to understand it. Bringing a horse to the water etc.

(2) Sony has taken to using the phrase *ritish' in his contributions on Talk:Atlantic Archipelago - "I'm no fan of the "*ritish Isles either". This formulation is used to denote extreme prejudice against/dislike for the term that is asterisked; as in "expletive deleted". So, I guess Sony is now making clear (no synthesis required) anti-British remarks.

(3) I don't detest the term "British" so much that I'd treat is as a swear word; it is perfectly sufficient that neither myself or my country is referred to as such. On a simple point of fact, not prejudice. But Sony obviously has deeper issues with it. Though he does flip-flop a bit. (Sarah777 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC))

Can we keep a little perspective here? I've read and re-read the exchange that led to the challenge by SonyYouth (someone I respect a great deal) and I have to say that I'm at a loss to see what the fuss is about. It looks like some mild pushing in the corridor, but both sides seem quick to search for offence. Neutral corner everyone and take five. --Red King 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right Red; but a report to Arbcom can have serious implications, hence my anger. I have now cooled down considerably - that was sooo, like, 7th September and I try not to nurture my grudges! (Sarah777 23:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC))

Seriously Sarah, I wouldn't worry. You didn't make any anti-British remarks in the above discussion, and yet Sony reported you. That serves to make Sony look silly, not you. Waggers 08:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm..Silly Sony - has a certain resonance -:)(Sarah777 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

OK - I can see I was too quick to reach for the gun. Apologies Sarah. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And I don't think your contributions are rubbish either; it was just the sharpest knife I could find at the time! (Sarah777 09:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

This page has now reached arbcom? Brilliant. From your old friend, Rdb. --88.107.135.214 10:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Case is closed. But another has opened, with many of the same cast in starring roles. (Sarah777 10:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

Not controversial anymore?

So, can we take it now that the term "British Isles" is not controversial anymore? The politically motivated British- and make no mistake that they are all on the right wing- have, since my last visit, removed the 'controversial' warning from the first paragraph of this article, as well as all notices concerning disputed edits. They have also, amazingly, removed all dissent from this Talk page to another page away from this article. Is this a British wikipedian's version of other British "keeping the peace" policies which removed us "troublesome" Irish from our land and away up to the barren mountains? The British reaction to Irish rejection is the same; the arena is merely different. Táimid ann agus beimid ann go deo. 86.42.100.202 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear user, the "controversial" nature is still mentioned in the opening paragraph and has been for as long as I can see. There is also the tag at the top of this page. Please refrain from making personal, or even racist attacks on other users, and remember to keep a cool head. Inflammatory discussion will not help to improve this article, and this is not the arena for political debate. -Toon⁰⁵ 19:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

British Isles is... or was...

It seems Irish editors at Wikipedia, have issue with the term British Isles. I wunder if British Isles here should be descibed in past-tense? Just curious. GoodDay 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As in, "The British Isles were a group of islands off north-west Europe, but no longer exist..." TharkunColl 08:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, as in they didn't exist until 1600 either, right? "The British Isles became a group of islands off north-west Europe in approximately 1600, but no longer exist." Hughsheehy 08:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget they existed in Greek and Latin terms from the beginning of history to at least he second century, and of course still exist everywhere except most of Ireland. Where people ken fine what the term means, but regard it as a thought crime. For an encore, imagine there's no country.... dave souza, talk 09:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should rename them the "Reappearing-Disappearing Islands". Meantime, Thark is on the Lough Neagh page [18] saying that the term "British" and possibly also "British Isles" should not be applied to anything English because "British" is a Celtic term and he wants nothing to do with such things. Oh yes, it's silly season. Hughsheehy 09:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

On that thought, Dave, when an edit is made to the geography section concerning the many geysers in the British Isles (though mainly located on Thule), I'll be happy that Lough Neagh is in the largest island in the British Isles - being on Hibernia, an island west of Albion. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Wait a sec, Tharky is saying no to the term British concerning England? Slam on the brakes, that not gonna wash with me. GoodDay 12:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Albion

Let us scrap the contentious terms British, Britain, and all their derivatives - which were, after all, imposed on us by the Romans - and return to the original native name for the island - Albion. I would also like to invite the Irish to support this move as Albion never, ever, under any circumstances ever included Ireland, or any part of it, in its meaning. TharkunColl 13:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Right, AGF just went out the window on me. Whoosh. I don't know if there's a policy on Wasting People's Time (WP:WPT?) but it applies to all the recent junk here, on Ireland, and on Lough Neagh. Thark is trolling. Rather lame trolling, but trolling nonetheless. Hughsheehy 13:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually know people who would be completely earnest about such a proposal - the Neopagans. TharkunColl 13:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thumbs down on this proposal. It's too extreme for me. GoodDay 15:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You know that Pete Doherty of Babyshambles, occasional boyfriend of Kate Moss has a rather interesting song called Albion? (Sarah777 20:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

I hadn't heard of that song, but it's true that the term is often used in Britain for a romanticised image of a pre-industrialised golden age. Also, for some reason, by quite a lot of football teams as part of their name, both in England and Scotland. And the Church of Scotland recently tried to replace the word "England" with "Albion" in the hymn Jerusalem. TharkunColl 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I had always understood that "Albion" meant "Union", and that's why it crops up in the names of football (and other sports) clubs (as an equivalent/alternative to "United"). Waggers 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There has long been a phrase in Ireland "perfidious Albion" which is taken to refer to "England" (for some reason that I can't understand) - my main source on this, the song Albion lists numerous English places in the lyric. (Sarah777 09:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

"Perfidious Albion" comes from French originally, I believe. The actual meaning of Albion is related to the word albus, meaning "white", and is believed to refer to the White Cliffs of Dover, the only part of Britain visible from the Continent, and therefore symbolising the whole island. (The article Albion gives a number of other theories as well.) It's proper meaning is the whole island, but it has often been used to refer to just England, and also just Scotland (in the forms Albany and, in Gaelic, Alba). TharkunColl 10:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Let us scrap..." - stop right there. Since when did "we" have any such authority? This is an encyclopaedia - "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." It's not for us to decide what to "scrap" and what not to "scrap", our role is merely to record. If suddenly everyone in the world were to agree that any word starting in "Brit" should no longer be used and that was documented in a reliable source then we would record that. But we do not decide that - Wikipedia does not have an opinion. Please get that into your head and stop trolling. Waggers 07:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool it Waggers! I think he is trolling-to-make-a-point. (Albeit a silly point ). (Sarah777 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC))

You're absolutely right of course, I shouldn't feed the trolls. It's just so tempting!! Waggers 09:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)