Talk:British Isles/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about British Isles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

→

A sketch of a proposal

I have the beginnings of a sketch of a proposal at User:Tb/British Isles. I hope that some form of compromise or consensus solution can be found. It worked for Gdansk/Danzig, it should be able to work here. Please if you have a moment, visit that page and comment, and I think maybe we could figure out a policy that all might be willing to live with. Tb (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. Is the intention to modify the contents of this article, or is it to develop a policy on the use of the term. If the latter, then this doesn't seem to be the place to hold the debate. Is not this talk page to be used for improvement ideas for the article itself? I wonder whether there's a need for any policy. I haven't seen a great deal of objection to the term in everyday life. Silas Stoat (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The latter: to develop an understanding, or proposal, or who-knows-what, about the use of the term in general. I haven't seen a great deal of objection to the term in everyday life. Perhaps not, but here on Wikipedia, there are a number of folks who wish to reduce its use as much as possible, and there has been no small amount of conflict as a result. Tb (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I would expect that whether or not you see objection to the term will depend on where you are. From the references on the article it seems that objection is anything but unusual in Ireland (or the ROI at least). I get the impression from the references that this level of objection has been noted in many places and that use of the term has been reduced in many places. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I think that Wikipedia should be written to be sensitive to minority opinions too, if we can do so without sacrificing integrity. That's part of the reason for NPOV anyhow, and that's what User:Tb/British Isles is trying to help with. Unfortunately, nobody from the "Irish side" (for lack of a better word) has seen fit to comment on it, whether positively or negatively. Tb (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, when I say, "in general," I mean "in general in Wikipedia articles." Tb (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have much expanded the text so it reads more like advice instead of a sketch. I would be particularly interested to hear from people who dislike the term "British Isles" to see if it is a compromise they could accept, or if there are changes which would make it acceptible to them. Tb (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I read it. It's way too long and too convoluted to be a useful policy. Also, from my quick read, almost no context would ever support use of the term "The British Isles" unless you accept ex-ante that it's the right term. Geographically the Channel Islands don't belong at all. Politically there is no unity except through the British-Irish Council, which body is apparently explicitly constructed to recognize a phantom political unity without really doing anything of the sort. Climatically Jersey and Shetland have less in common than Paris and Stockholm. Culturally there is little or nothing common except the comparatively modern fact that everyone speaks English. Zoologically there are significant differences. I might be wrong but looking through it I'd almost paraphrase your suggestion like this;- "The British Isles is an increasingly obsolete term of political geography. Its use in political contexts is now unacceptable. Its use in geographical contexts is tricky and you need to be REALLY careful before you do it. Its use may be perfectly fine in discussions of historical issues within a certain narrow window, but be careful. If you do find it in a page you don't need to delete it or change it unless its use is egregiously incorrect. Try not to use it in new text unless you really can't find any alternative. Oh, alternatives are tricky too....pick VERY carefully." Maybe I'm reading it wrong. If so, sorry! Wotapalaver (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's no more convoluted that other policies of similar point. But the idea of it is in fact just what you're saying: to say, "sure, use it in the right place" but then to explain why the narrowness of "right place" is so narrow as to make it not really useful. And to ask to leave existing uses alone. That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Tb (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And to leave existing uses alone, unless they're wrong, right? The rfc on Bardcom seems to have demonstrated that this is pretty frequently the case. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term British Isles in articles

Rather than debate this with a small number of users, I think it's better to open this up to the community interested in the term "British Isles" and it's usage. And I realize I should have done this earlier. Perhaps after this discussion, some clearer guidelines will become apparent. My edits were made in good faith.

Please note, I will not participate any further in this discussion so that the changes themselves, and the reasons (good or bad) can be examined and the issue discussed, without the conversation degenerating into a discussion on alleged personal motives or morals or whatever. Afterwards, if the community decides to revert all the changes, I'm fine with that and I'll accept it. If nothing else, this discussion will clarify usage of this term, and hopefully remove sloppy use.

I've editted a number of articles that used the term "British Isles". When making these edits, I looked at a number of factors:

Why are the articles using the term? Is there a reference for using "British Isles" instead of a different term such as Great Britain and/or Ireland?
Is the term precise? Should the term instead be referring to the realms of a British monarch?

Below are references to a number of articles where the edits were made. These article were objected to by Tb and the section below was placed on my talk page, which I've moved here. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles Lapworth

You altered Charles Lapworth here ([1]) with the notation "corrected text". Was the text incorrect? For it to have been incorrect, he must have somehow been a leading geologist in Great Britain, but not in the British Isles as a whole. Was there a large number of non-British geologists on the other islands making his contributions no longer so notable in that larger context? Let's see, is this your "political" claim? No, because Lapworth died in 1920, and the independent state of Ireland did not come into existence until 1922. For his entire life, Ireland was a part of the UK. So what exactly was the reason for the change? Tb (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed this reference because his work focuses on Great Britain, especially Scotland. This type of usage of "British Isles" is what I think of as a little sloppy - no references or citations, just an assumption that it is the correct term. (There's probably an argument that he was a world-wide leading geologist) Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are many terms which would all be correct. The term "British Isles" is one of the clearly correct terms: he unquestionably was a leading geologist of the whole area. And, at the time, let's be clear, the British Isles were one political entity. Tb (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend replacing British Isles with United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Following on from my comments on the Rfc, a question. Was Charles Lapworth ever in Ireland? Did he write anything about Ireland? Since geology is about the ground, if he was "unquestionably" a leading geologist of the "whole area" then surely he was at least in Ireland - at least once. Surely? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A pedantic correction ... "the British Isles were one political entity" - the British Isles have never been a political entity. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (the closes that it has ever come to being one entity) did not include the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. All of the states of the British Isles shared a common head of state between 1603 and 1949. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cathedral

You altered Cathedral here ([2]) saying "small change". You thus change a statement which says that outside the British Isles a cathedral head was a provost, into a statement that "on continental Europe" a cathedral head was a provost. This of course makes one wonder about cathedrals not in Europe at all, say in the Latin kingdom in Jerusalem, or old North African remnants, or on other islands, say, Sicily. For your change to be accurate, it must be that you think that "provost" was used in France, but not in Sicily or Jerusalem, and thus changing "outside the British Isles" to "on continental Europe" makes sense. Do you have any references to support that? Is political jurisdiction relevant here? How is this "more accurate"? Tb (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another sloppy usage. Earlier in the article, it states "The history of the cathedrals in Britain differs somewhat from that on the European continent.", but then goes on to use the term "outside the British Isles" while the section is still only referring to continental Europe. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So you have no basis for knowing whether the facts you implied are true or not. The article should stay as is pending research on the point, then. You should have some positive reason to think it's wrong before changing it, not just an allergy to a term. Tb (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If cathedral heads in Great Britain and Ireland are called the same thing? then use the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Following on from the RFC, a question. Are cathedral heads called the same thing in Britain and Ireland? Are they? Or is provost (in a religious context) perhaps a term that's used in various places including (according to Wikpedia) Germany? Is this ANOTHER example of Bardcom's changes being actually perfectly valid? Wotapalaver (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The head of a cathedral in Ireland is called a dean, not a provost, AFAIK. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great Storm of 1703

You altered Great Storm of 1703 here ([3]). It used to say that the great storm of 1703 was the most severe ever recorded in the British Isles. If there ever was a time for a geographical reference--you said that you don't object when the point is geography--here it is. But no, you altered that to say it was the most severe ever recorded in Great Britain. So does that mean there is a more severe storm recorded for Ireland, which didn't hit Great Britain? Tb (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this one a lot. The storm was very localised in that it only affected southern England (and probably continental europe including northern France). The latest book published on this subject has a strapline of Britain's night of destruction. The references included with the article don't mention that it was the greatest storm in the British Isles. I'm happy for this to be changed back to read British Isles, but some references of data would be good. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Amazon search: [4] -- that should be enough to warrant its being changed back.Doug Weller (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You have the responsibility to verify first. Clearly you simply changed it because you don't want "British Isles" to be used, period. You assumed that even the weather is careful to avoid lumping Ireland and Great Britain together. This is an indication that your edits are not considered and are disruptive. Tb (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If the storm hit both Great Britain and Ireland? then use the term British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No evidence that the storm was of any significance outside of southern England. Bardcom (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you click on the link User:Dougweller helpfully provided. But that isn't the point. The article said it was the most severe storm recorded in the British Isles. That doesn't say it hit everything in the British Isles; it says that nothing more severe has ever been recorded to. That is the original text said, clearly, that this storm was the largest to hit the area ever known. The only reason to change it is if some larger storm hit Ireland or Man or something. Or, of course, because you are allergic to the term "British Isles." Tb (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe some of the information on the rfc page demonstrates that more severe storms have hit Ireland and indeed that there is record of more severe storms hitting Shetland too. Does this count? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English Civil War

You altered English Civil War here ([5]) to change a claim that the English Civil War affected society at every level throughout the British Isles int a claim confined to England. Is it your serious contention that the English Civil War did not have a significant effect on society in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, or the Isle of Man? First English Civil War discusses its connections with both Scotland and Ireland. Tb (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This was another sloppy usage. It could equally be argued that the English civil war affected society at every level throughout Europe, or the known world. I changed this because the context of the surrounding paragraphs make it clear that the discussion is focussed on England. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

'Equally be argued'? I think not. Look at the history again.Doug Weller (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As this Civil War caused the 'temporary' abolishment of the English/Welsh, Scottish and Irish monarchies? British Isles should be used. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's supposedly a geographical term, should be avoided in histories etc. Just confuses the reader. Do you want to to that? -78.19.238.101 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like deleting all pre-historic articles, myself. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Bardcom may have been a bit cavalier here (ouch, bad pun). The English Civil War did affect society throughout the entire area. A point of debate is whether the area was called "The British Isles" at that time. The term had indeed been used in English by the time of the Civil War, but I find a reference that says that "The British Isles" was not the common term it became until AT LEAST the late 17th century. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Fairy

You altered Fairy here ([6]) with the comment "Updated reference to remove B.I." This suggests that your goal was simply to remove "British Isles," and you had no other motivation. You replaced a claim that linked fairy beliefs to "Celtic nations and British Isles" to one about "Celtic nations in Ireland and Great Britain." In the process, of course, Celtic nations on the mainland somehow vanished from the article; is it your claim that the Celts on the continent were not relevant in the history of fairy beliefs? And what about Celtic people elsewhere in the British Isles, on the Isles of Man or Sandwich, for example? How did it make the article more "up to date" to make this change? Tb (talk) 02:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake - I only intended to leave the term "Celtic nations". This is more sloppy usage of the term "British Isles" as it is a subset of the term Celtic nations in this context. --Bardcom (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there ane non-sloppy cases? Tb (talk) 12:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If these beliefs occured in both Great Britain and Ireland? Then the term British Isles should be used. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The beliefs stemmed from the Celtic Nations, not from the British Isles. Celtic nations also includes France, which BTW is where a lot of fairy folklore originates. Bardcom (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the original did have a broader term. It was you who incorrectly narrowed it specifying only Celts in Ireland and Great Britain. You are careless in your dogmatism, which is even worse than the dogmatism iself. Tb (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the article describes how Fairies come from old French mythology, isn't the whole "Sources of Beliefs" section on Britain/Ireland/British Isles at least potentially, well, wrong? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Glastonbury

You altered Glastonbury here ([7]) with the label "Minor Correction". The original text said that the Joseph of Arimathea legend places Glastonbury as the birthplace of Christianity in the British Isles; you changed it to "Great Britain." For that to make sense, one expects that a part of that legend, or others compatible with it, features Christianity being introduced even earlier elsewhere. Perhaps somewhere in Ireland there was an earlier legend, so that Joseph of Arimathea could have had something to do with Great Britain, but not the whole British Isles. Of course, the original was correct, so how is it a "correction" to make it say "Great Britain"? Is not Great Britain a part of the British Isles? Is it not true that the legend has Joseph as the first introduction of Christianity in the whole British Isles? Do you have some other variant on the legend to report? Some other legend? Anything to justify this change at all besides your dislike of the term "British Isles"? Tb (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Another sloppy usage. There is no evidence, or legend, that associates the coming of Christianity to Ireland to Joseph. We credit St. Patrick with this. So at best, the legend deals with bringing christianity to Great Britain. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Joseph legend is a legend which of course predates St. Patrick. The article didn't say "to Ireland", it said "to the British Isles". Ireland is a part of the British Isles. The original text was thus accurate, and since the change was motivated by POV it should be reverted. Tb (talk) 12:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If the legend of Joseph covers Ireland aswell as Great Britain? Then British Isles should be used. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The legend is unheard of in Ireland, and makes no reference to Ireland. Bardcom (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The legend is unheard of in Ireland. That's just utter hogwash. I'm certain one could find a book about it. Heck, there's even Irish access to Wikipedia. But the legend says that Joseph was the first in the British Isles. (Also says that Joseph was the first in Great Britain; also says that Joseph was the first in Glastonbury.) All are true statements, all are interesting. But your edit was based not on a consideration of the Joseph legend, but upon your objection to the use of the term "British Isles" in every context. (Counterexamples still awaited.) Tb (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's apparent that the Joseph of Arimethea story applies to Britain, not to Ireland, and saying he's the "origin of Christianity in the British Isles" is a huge and misleading stretch - much like it would be a stretch to say that Caesar brought the Roman Empire to the British Isles. He didn't, in either case. St.Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland 400 years later. The Romans didn't come to "The British Isles", only to Britain. Similarly, it would be wrong to pick a flower that only grows on Jersey and to describe it as "native to the British Isles". Wotapalaver (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's quite gratuitous to describe the Glastonbury as being the birthplace of Christianity in the British Isles. It may have been the birthplace of Christianity in southern Britain, but it does not represent the birthplace of Christianity in Ireland. Wotapalaver is quite right above, it's quite disingenuous to the facts. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I was just following up on some of the references on the Joseph of Arimethea page, some of the references that purported to refer to "the Britannic Isles", actually refer to the "isles of Britain". I am taking the text from the online translation of Eusebius by Ferrar from 1920, which seems to be the only available translation. I don't know where the previous editor got their phrase. Anyone is welcome to check my use of the reference. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not surprised. I've editted the Glastonbury article with a more complete and NPOV version. Bardcom (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Britannic Isles are the Isles of Britain. Which included Ireland - go and check the Ptolemy reference in the article. A more natural way of saying this in English is British Isles, because - as has been discussed elsewhere on this page - English lacks a nominative case. As for Glastonbury being the first Christian centre in the British Isles, of course it was - and since this article is about the British Isles, rather than, say, southern Britain, it is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Your view of grammar might be right, or might not. It sounds a stretch to me, especially in the context. In any case, Ptolemy is not at question in the context. The previous version of the article misquoted the source it referenced. I mean it had a quote, in quotation marks, that was not the text in the text that was linked. If you want to argue you're probably out of luck since I suspect the guy who did the translation, in England in the 1920's, is dead by now. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Pytheas

You altered Pytheas here ([8]) with the label "minor correction". The legend as reported originally said that Pytheas called the British Isles "the Isles of the Pretani." You changed this to just "the islands". Was he not referring to the whole archipelago? Do you have evidence that he meant only some of the islands and not others? Is it not more helpful to say that he was referring to what we now know as the British Isles, and specifically as a geographical entity? Tb (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, the term "British Isles" isn't correct in the context of this article. For one, the term "British Isles" didn't exist, so he can't have been "quoted" as referring to the islands as the "British Isles". For another, there is some doubt over the exact islands he was referring to. Bardcom (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" did not exist, but the British Isles certainly did. Are you suggesting that if Pytheas had bopped over the north channel, or looked to the left of his boat as he sailed the coast of Ireland, he would have said, "oh, look, clearly not the Pretani"? When sailing through the north channel, is it not going to be obvious that "these islands" refers to the whole archipelago? Tb (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Tb, Quote, "And, at the time, let's be clear, the British Isles were one political entity. ", unquote. I think you have exposed the problem in what you wrote, that British Isles is indeed a political term, and is being pushed needlessly into articles, where better wording would suffice. Quite frankly, I see it as British nationalism, and pov-pushing. The term should only be used where it has to be used, and nothing more than that. Bardcom's edits are quite good in my experience. -78.19.238.101 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

that's out of context. regardless, User:Bardcom has argued that B.I. is a geographical term, and therefore not appropriate in political contexts; and then that it is a political term, and not appropriate in geographic contexts. But he insists that it does have a proper use, though he has yet to explain what one looks like. Tb (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If Pytheas was referring to both Great Britain and Ireland? then use British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The article states "He is quoted as referring to the British Isles as the "Isles of the Pretani." Unless he was referring to the Channel Islands and Jersey and all the other islands too, this is incorrect. Bardcom (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Channel Islands are minor outlying islands that are not essential to the definition of British Isles. Pytheas was clearly, since he mentioned both Britain and Ireland, referring to the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the point here is that Pytheas didn't call The British Isles the Isles of the Pretani. He called the islands he discovered the Isles of the Pretani. Isn't there a Wikipedia policy about getting the cart before the horse? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like quite a minor edit and improves the flow and meaning of the sentence. It is also more correct as Pytheas's "British Isles" included Thule, probably Iceland. --sony-youth^pléigh 03:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As the article on Thule makes clear, in Pytheas's day the term probably referred to the Orkneys or Shetlands. Only in the later middle ages did it come to possibly mean Iceland. TharkunColl (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Thule is not a valid source and unless you have not read the references from the British Isles article you should know that it perfectly well may have meant, and several scholars say it probably did mean, Iceland in Greek/Roman times. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is the term right?

User:Bardcom has protested that he leaves many instances of "British Isles" alone. I would invite him to give some examples. In addition, I would invite him to give some examples where he has introduced the term: that is, where it was not used, but should have been, and so he added it. When I asked this on his talk page, he insisted I was being abusive and unfair. So I'll ask here: Where are these legitimate uses, in your opinion, User:Bardcom? Folks have looked at your edit logs, and it looks almost entirely like removals of one term you don't like. Where are the cases where you saw it and left it alone? Where are the cases where you added it? Tb (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated my wish to withdraw from this discussion so that people can review the edits rather than attack the person. Random selection of articles where the usage is perfectly fine: Brown Bear, British and Irish Lions, Geography of the Isle of Man, Tuff. Lots more too. I haven't inserted the term "British Isles" in any article - not that I wouldn't, I just haven't seen any need yet. Lastly, once more, I warn you about ad hominen attacks. Please keep your comments on the content rather than pointedly trying to develop a theory that I am systematically and blindly removing all references to "British Isles". Bardcom (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue here, British Isles, is supposedly a geographical term. So that would mean that the term should be avoided in histories, mythologies, cultural, etc etc, and only used in geographical articles. Its use should be examined, and checked for context. -78.19.238.101 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's difficult to juggle terms via history. If we 'omit' British Isles term, simply because the term didn't exist during 'way back when'? Then Wikipedia articles on pre-history wouldn't exist. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we also avoid Mediteranean sea in historical items, as that too is a geographical term? if event X affected all/most of British Isles then that clearly is the correct phrase to use. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue with history is that the islands were not one homogenous culture. Apparently there were three main cultures on the islands, the Picts in Scotland, Britons in Britain (England & Wales), and the Gaels in Ireland. In Ireland, as opposed to the island of Britain, the Gaels spoke Q-Celtic language, so they were a completely different culture to the island of Britain, who spoke P-Celtic. It's important that the area is not all lumped together under the 17th century term British Isles, as Ireland was a very distinct place, and the reader deserves a NPOV article at very least. Remember, the term British Isles is disputed.-78.19.238.101 (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The distinction between Q and P Celtic may not have existed during the pre-Roman period, or certainly not to the extent that later came about, and dividing Celtic languages up in this way is by no means the only system in use. These days it is more common to see references to Insular Celtic (British Isles) and Continental Celtic (Europe). Furthermore, the British Isles had for millennia beforehand shared a distinctive culture, such as that of the stone circle builders. Because the British Isles are a geographical unit, they have therefore shared cultural and linguistic traits - and still do. TharkunColl (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Thark, you would like to make it all very confusing for the reader, and I must confess, as one who was once invited to join Mensa, that some of the sentences containing the term "British Isles", can get very foggy indeed. You are forever claiming that it is a geographical term, but now you are saying that it is a cultural term too, is that correct? -78.19.238.101 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As a distinct geographical unit it has developed distinctive cultural traits. This is not in the slightest bit difficult to understand. Attempting to restrict its use to articles dealing purely with geography is therefore artificial and wrong. And I have never, by the way, claimed that it's just a geographical term. TharkunColl (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

What common and distinctive cultural traits has "it" developed? Now, these need to be distinctive as in nobody else really does that and common as in the "traits" are pretty much uniform across the islands - otherwise it's just European culture on one side or local culture on the other. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom redux

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Interesting this!! I was wandering around, still chasing up some of the interesting references from the Bardcom RFC when I came across an edit by TharkunColl on the British Isles terminology page which seemed to me to be pure POV OR and I reverted it. TharkunColl's comment on my talk page seemed to me to contradict an argument he'd made here some time ago about how language is defined, so I remarked as such on his talk page. Two days later he's accusing me of being a sockpuppet. see [9] Is this the common reaction from anyone who debates with TharkunColl & Co.? Is this the way that discussion is held here? Wotapalaver (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note, this comment is NOT purely about TharkunColl, more about what I see as a general approach on this page to attack anyone who askes questions, raises doubts, etc. The attacks on Bardcom were an example. The attacks seem generally to lack any supporting references and to be based on use of harrassment and repetition ad infinitum of the same (flawed) arguments. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro

Please don't add yet more references to how the Irish don't like the term to the lead paragraph, it is already overburdened with them anyway. To avoid POV, we actually need a few more showing Irish people using the term and being perfectly okay with it. Because let me assure you, not all Irish people share your political POV, and if this article gives the impression that they do, it is lying. TharkunColl (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. You started adding one-sided refs first. (re-edited) Please don't add references that show one side of a discussion. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All of my links have been grouped into a single note, but yours haven't, which makes it look like there are more of them. Furthermore, mine are official reports of the Irish parliament, but yours are just debates. But even more importantly, the lead paragraph already contains numerous references to the fact that some Irish people don't like the term. My additions simply went some way (though nowhere near far enough) to redress the balance, but your additions have unbalanced it still further. You may not like the fact, but not all Irish people share your political views, and this article must reflect both sides properly. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you group the references instead of deleting them! Further, your "Official Reports" are official reports of the proceedings of the parliament. They're a record of who said what when in parliament, not some kind of official government report. The reference I added are similar in nature and come directly from the British Isles naming dispute page. I'm sure Enoch Powell's speech on the "rivers of blood" appears in Hansard, which is the equivalent Official Report from Westminster but was certainly not a reflection of government policy or the accepted view at the time. As for whatever you think my "political views" are, they're irrelevant and your view of them is irrelevant so please stop banging on about politics. Finally, your view of "balance" is strange to me. You can add references about how the term is regularly used in Official Reports without proving regularity and with a somewhat misleading presentation of Official Report but it's then unreasonable to point out that the term is also used in ways that exclude the Republic of Ireland from the definition? That's an odd view of "balance". Wotapalaver (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be very surprised indeed if Powell's "rivers of blood" speech appears in Hansard, since it was made to a local Tory party meeting at the Midland Hotel, Birmingham. TharkunColl (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, that speech might not be, but you surely know what I mean. Perhaps the recent speech about the benefits of Homeopathy by David Tredinnick would be a better example. It probably is in Hansard. Doesn't make it anything "official". Wotapalaver (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) My next point is that homeopathy does not fit normal—that is, orthodox—methods of assessment. For example, the scale of prescribing is in reverse so that the weaker the dose, the more powerful or effective it is. This is thus from an "Official Report" of the UK Parliament. Doesn't make it true. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A note here - this is a very silly little war; the differences between the two versions reverted are minimal. I'd lean towards Tharkun's version in this case of the second paragraph, if only for reasons of breivity in the intro. If in the lead-in all occaisionaly-used definitions are included then we get into unwieldy and complex text; intros are meant to be succinct, straightforward and clear. Leave the 'minor-uses', if you will, to the main body of the text.

However, I do dislike the term 'regularly': it is much more normative than 'sometimes'. If you note definitions of 'regularly' - "In an expected or customary manner; for the most part"; "In a common, usual, or customary manner; Having an expected form" [10] - then I don't think it's the correct word to use. Regularly suggests a quantifiable majority, indeed from these definitions I'd suggest a quantifiable large marjority, and a expectation of use, which I don't think we have evidence of.

Even more importantly: reversions just damage the article and its better to have a version you disagree with up for a few hours whilst you discuss; it keeps good faith. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Vastly silly, yes. IMHO the starting version is better than either of the reverted versions. However, the additional piece which TharkunColl called balance was no such thing. If we get into presentations of what is, or is not, "regularly" said in the Irish Parliament then it needs to include the fact that the term is often used in the Irish parliament to mean something else, and potentially a discussion of what's said other places too. Then we end up trying to have a balanced discussion - in the introduction - of all the places that the term is used and mis-used, which already exists in reasonable detail in the text. Sounds like a bad idea to me. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken References, missing page numbers

Hi. I've been reading the references on the page and a few are broken and a bunch of book references miss page numbers. e.g. ref#14 doesn't have anything to do with Collier's Encyclopedia. Ref #75 seems to be a double ref. I think only one of them should be #75 and there should be a new #76. Does anyone remember which should have been where? Also, a bunch of the book citations miss page numbers. Does anyone know the material well enough to know which page goes with which topic? Wotapalaver (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection notice

See edit warring is taking place. Protected it for one day to cool things. Please keep things to discussion for now. I will prolong the protection if edit warring resumes tomorrow. Regards Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this page is protected. The problem for me is that it's protected in an extreme and broken state. This line:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland (see British Isles naming dispute) where its use is objected to by many people[4]

leads to a single broken citation for "many people". I have never personally seen a good citation demonstrating this - but have seen clear evidence showing that the "call for change" over this matter is marginal and not politicised. It is against Wikipedia guidelines in it's use of a bracketed link leading to a POV fork. I would suggest deleting the line, as it is both controversial and uncited.

On a personal note, I've backed off from this subject for a while (which has been brought to a few places on Wikipedia) but now I've got this page watched I'm personally not going to sit back and watch a small unrelenting group of the same faces stamp their bias on WP like this. They are using Wikipedia to advance their aim - and it doesn't mean someone is a 'unionist', an enemy, or of the opposite political extreme to not want Wikipedia used in this way. Keeping Wikipedia balanced is more important than political river-pushing. Wikipedia should come first, not the cause - and this is simply abusing Wikipedia. Time and time again they simply cannot come up with non-anecdotal proof that doesn't fall flat: it's a 'push' rather than a representation - which isn't what Wikipedia is meant to be about. WP:Notability and WP:weight must be adhered to.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Based on the post above, I'd recommend keeping the page protected for another while as it looks like another edit war brewing... --Bardcom (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's the perfect edit for you. Assume some 'Good Faith' and do not suggest I will 'edit war': I am adding my weight, and I won't be worn off this time by a war of attrition. I have previously used Talk but I will now also make edits - and I am entitled to do so.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Apologies if you believe I suggested that *you* would engage in an edit war. It's actually not what I said, or necessarily meant, and I didn't realise you were feeling sensitive to this issue. I merely predict that the edits you describe will be controversial, and those edits will cause other editors to object and possibly revert, and begin another edit war. You may or may not be involved. But it's odd that you accuse me of not assuming good faith (as I always make this assumption) while using language such as "watch a small unrelenting group of the same faces stamp their bias on WP like this". Seems to me that perhaps you have a different idea of what assuming good faith means... --Bardcom (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the point above? Is Matt Lewis saying that the objections to the term aren't adequately referenced or that people saying the term is not objected to are not providing adequate reference? Wotapalaver (talk) 15:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking me or the room? Read properly - it's pretty clear. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see from the recent set of edits on the naming dispute page that Matt Lewis regards objection to the term as a political illusion, despite the references in the articles. Matt, two questions. (A) Have you read the references on the British Isles naming dispute page before you started throwing the accusations of POV into the mix? (B) How can you insist that people should assume good faith on your edits when you very repeatedly accuse previous editors of POV and of being a "small unrelenting group"? Wotapalaver (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made some unarguable exaggeration-removal edits to the British Isles naming dispute page (can you argue with my edits? de-pluralising single incidences, adding FACT? tags to big statements without citations etc). I keep asking for citations - and I am aware of the ones that are regularly used. Yes, I find that many of the lines I see are simply exaggerated - you should be able to see that from reading my comment above! The edits you refer to are simply per Wikipedia weight guidelines.

A) Yes - as Bardcom will know I've spent hours debating this (though I've previously avoided this particular page). I'm not casually 'throwing' anything into a mix. I've previously unwatched a page because of being factually ignored, and for asked the same questions (and given the same weak examples) as if I have never provided considered answers at some length (which are rarely replied to either) - not tactics I admire: it's a war of attrition, like I said. Nor are they tactics that would be needed, if enough solid non-anecdotal evidence was behind all this. The dispute pushers shouldn't have to exaggerate so much - that's my entire point. It's why I keep calling it pushing. I would be fully for applying all this weight to the dispute if I saw evidence to warrent it, as I've said many times before. Wikipedia just isn't the place to canvas for new evidence - it simply must be provided for by significant citations, and not by using un-matching pluralisation and exaggerated language and rhetoric.

B) Consequently, I know well-enough the group of editors I refer to. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)I at least can argue with your edits, not least because they're messy and they butchered several readable sentences into unreadable nonsense. e.g. British Isles in relation to Ireland has been recognised in the UK and its use has been removed[citation needed]. Recent histories of Great Britain and Ireland, published by major British academic publishers like the Oxford and Cambridge University presses, have discussed the acceptibility term British Isles in Ireland, although one has continued to use the term "for convenience".[13][citation needed] Oh dear. "its use has been removed"? "have discussed the acceptibility term British Isles". Also, I believe you are inserting citation needed tags where adequate reference exists on this page and/or the terminology page. Tsk Tsk tsk. As for knowing the editors who belong to this "small unrelenting group", would you care to name them and provide some supporting reference? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it on the correct page, alright. What was there was pluralisations of single poor cites or just exaggerated statements with no backing. If it doesn't read like Shakespeare then tough - you smooth it out: It wasn't poetry before. As for you giving me a "Tsk tsk tsk" for me asking for citations! It is only your opinion that "adequate" references exist 'elsewhere' on the page "and/or the terminology page"!! In my opinion they patently do not! You sound like you have no idea how Wikipedia works regarding referencing. RE me "naming names" - I'm certainly not wasting my time answering myself to you! (suffice to say I've not come across you before).--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm tsking at your whole approach, that you replace clear readable text with sloppy unreadable ungrammatical nonsense. That you take perfectly valid references and try to turn them into POV "tracts" and that everything is political. It's not helpful at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Irish language "Translation"

The "British Isles" in Irish is Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. This being the literal translation. Why does this title not appear at the top of the page. This translation appears to be the first given in the Collins Pocket Irish dictionary (2002), which was produced in conjuntion with the University of Ulster, in Northern Ireland. Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa (Islands of Western Europe) is a politically motivated edit. Other Irish dictionaries, such as An Gúm's Foclóir Scoile ,ignore the existance of the term, as does De Bhalraithe, and Ó Dónaill (notably these last three all have been copyrighted by the Irish government in 1994, 1959 and 1977 respectively), but this does not take away from the fact that the term Na hOileáin Briotanacha does exist in the language, and as it is the most accurate and direct translation, it should be used in this article. It could be argued that "the majority of Irish speakers don't use that terminology", that doesn't mean they can't. Many Irish speakers refer to Northern Ireland as "Na Sé Chontae" (literally "The Six Counties"), but I doubt that would be approved as an official translation by any party. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2008)

Very good point. If there is an official Irish translation for the term, and referencable, then it should be used. I'd never noticed that. You are quite correct, it means something completely different and isn't a translation of it. And possibly not even what it is called in Irish. Canterbury Tail talk 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The ref (number 2) in the intro already gives two different translations from two different sources. Certainly a 3rd can be added. It's interesting that the Collins (apparently produced in cooperation with the University of Ulster) translates the term "British Isles" into "British Isles", while the two existing references (apparently from the Republic, including one from 1927) translate the term differently and if I read de.de.loinsigh correctly the "official" dictionaries ignore the term and don't give a translation at all. Amazon lists a tonne of different dictionaries and there are several online too. It would be interesting to see what they all say. One online dictionary certainly translates "The British Isles" to "The British Isles" [11]. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the problem - the British Isles is not a legal entity, and therefore has no legal translation in any language. The Irish translation for "The British Isles" is "Na hOileáin Bhriotánacha". The apparant trabslation that has been given does not mean that, but the "Islands of Western Europe", and therefore, whilst it could be inserted into a contested names section, it is not the translation of the term and hense shouldn't be at the head of the page. Wotapalaver, the intro gives what amounts to synomims in Irish for "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", and not an accurate translation of the English term itself. The Collins dictionary (ISBN 0-00-470765-6 and 9 780004 707655) was produced in conjunstion with the University of Ulster, and inside the front cover, it reads "Collins Pocket Irish Dictionary, English-Irish Gaeilge-Béarla, Séamus Mac Mathúna and Ailbhe Ó Corráin (University of Ulster, Coleraine), Collins, An Imprint of HapperCollinsPublishers". All the other dictionaries (Foclóir Scoile (ISBN 1-85791-121-0 and 9 781857 911213), De Bhaldraithe (ISBN 1-85791-036-2 and 9 78157 910360), and Ó Dónaill (ISBN 1-85791-038-9 and 9 781857 910384)) have "© Rialtas na hÉireann" (ie. Government of Ireland) written on the inside cover. All three having been produced by "An Gúm", a publisher of the Irish government. What I was trying to suggest is that seeing as the Irish government is not at ease using the term "British Isles" in English, this perhaps may be a reason as to why the term (ie British Isles or Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha) appears either to be absent or mistranslated in their dictionaries. Whereas the dictionary which was made without any connection with the government of the Republic of Ireland does include the correct translation ie. Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not the "translation". There is no "translation" because the concept of the "British isles" is a very idiosyncratic outcome of British hegemonic claims to Ireland. To accept that term is to accept that claim and that anti-Irish world view. As such, it doesn't enter the linguistic framework, in Irish or English, of any person who is opposed to that political assertion. This really shouldn't be too difficult for even a loyalist of the Cruithin school of thought to grasp, I would have hoped. Agus táim cinnte nach bhfuil do dhúchais féin ó Chnoc an Línsigh agus na fíor-Normanaigh as an áit sin. 194.125.32.170 (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, d.de.loinsigh, I'm not disputing anything you say, I think. However, just to point out that it´s not unusual for the name of something in one language to be different than a translation of the name for the same thing in a different language. The English Channel ≠ La Manche. These are not direct translations of each other. It cannot be unusual for things in physical geography to have quite different names in different languages, names that are not direct translations, just as it's not unusual for names not to be translated at all. Cote d'Azur is not translated in English as The Blue Coast. It's not impossible for the name of the British Isles in Irish to be The Isles of Western Europe AND/OR The British Isles. It's not impossible for both Irish versions to be used and true. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

194.125.32.170 - cad é an cainiúint atá ann sin? Chan fhuil m’ainm ceart scríofa air seo. Nílim ag iarraidh é sin a athrú agus fáilte. Sa deireadh thiar thall is cuma fá’n sloinne/ainm an úsáideora s’agam-sa ámh, agus ba mhaith a bhfuil a fhios agat é sin. ‘Sé an rud atá mé ag iarraidh a rádh ná, cé go bhfuil an téarma “The British Isles” conspóideach, caífear a admháil go bhfuil a leithéid de fhocal sa teangaidh. Ar a bharr sin, bíonn an téarma Gaeilge, “Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha” conspóideach go leor fosta. Ach ní h-ionann é sin is a rá go bhfuil cead ag lucht labhartha na Gaeilge, ná cibé duine a chuir an “t-aistriúchán” sin ar an leathach, é sin a ghearradh as nuair is mian leofa. Chan fhuil an téarma atá curtha ar fáil go dtí seo aistrithe i gceart – baineann sé an Briotanachas as na hOileáin seo – rud atá thar a bheith amadeach, go h-airid má smaoiníonn tú ar teideal Béarla an ailt. Nílim ag rá ach an oiread nach bhfuil cead ag duine ar bith úsáid a bhaint as an téarma “Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa” nuair a ba mhaith leofa, ach chan ar an alt seo, áit a bhfuiltear ag iarraidh foinse ‘‘eolais’’ a chur ar fáil don lucht léite. Agus dála an scéil níor chóir Gaeilig a úsáid air an leagan seo de Wikipedia – scríobh i mBéarla amháin. Más rud é go mbeidh tú ag baint úsáide as an Ghaeilig, cur aistriúchán leis. The term British Isles exists in the English language – its historical context is very much irrelevant to the title of the article. The term is contraversially used in both Irish ‘‘and’’ English, this however is not an excuse for either Irish speakers, or whoever added the current Irish “version” (which is linguistically NOT an accurate translation of either the concept or of the article) to remove Britishness from the term British Isles. I’m not stating that “Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa” cannot be used (though I will state definitively that I have NEVER heard/read it), but that it does not describe this group of islands as accurately as “Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha” would. The term does not give an "anti-Irish" view of the world - it isn't even anti-nationalist or anti-republican. I've heard members and supporters of the SDLP use it. Wotapalaver. The term "British Isles has been used to describes these islands for hundreds of years in many languages, not just English. My principal problem with Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa is that it is too ambigious. It, unlike Na hOileáin Briotanacha, has NEVER been defined. Does this include any island which happens to be in western Europe, Iceland, the Faroes, the Balearics? It is ildefined. I am aware that le Chenal Anglais would make no sense in French - but this is because the term simply does not exist in French. This is thereofre not a similar case, as "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" does exist in Irish, and is used when referring to these islands. I can only presume that whoever added the term "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" did so for reasons that were not linguistic or geogra(perhaps political). D.de.loinsigh (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

First, please write in English on the talk page. Second, on your presumption that whoever put in the Dineen reference did it for political reasons, why would you think that? Perhaps they put it in because that´s what´s in the Dineen dictionary and they had that one. Why must it be political? Third, perhaps the interesting point in Irish is that there are multiple different "translations", including everything from no translation at all through different terms through to a word for word translation. Fourth, can you provide some references from hundreds of years ago to "The British Isles" being used to describe the islands in Irish, specifically in the 17th century or earlier? It would be an important reference for this article. Fifth, whether or not you've never hear the term from the Dineen dictionary is totally irrelevant. There are many words in English dictionaries that I've never heard used and my compact OED doesn't have "British Isles" in it at all. Sixth, geographical names are largely arbitrary, so there´s no objective standard on whether "Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa" is more or less accurately defined than "Na hOileáin Briotanacha". Usage (and then dictionaries) defines it. Dineen uses one name, Collins another, focal.ie still another, etc.,. It´s not for you or me to define one as right, simply to report what's in the reference works in a balanced NPOV way. We should do that. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I only wrote in Irish to respond to the previous response. Their (whoever originally added “Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa”) reasoning doesn’t have to be political, but I believe it was (at least slightly) politically motivated because it cannot have been linguistically so. They evidently didn’t check all the available information (which in relation to the Irish language isn’t all that much in comparison to other languages) – and definitely not the most recent information. One would expect that such a controversial term in English (especially in Ireland) would also be controversial in Irish – which appears to be the case. Furthermore Dineen’s dictionary is not written in modern Irish, and does not use the standard form of the Latin alphabet. It was written before the spelling reform and thus why would anyone consider using it as a reference in relation to a modern Irish translation on the top of this page? (The more modern version should have visual prominence.) As it stands the afore mentioned Collins dictionary is the most recently compiled dictionary of the Irish language – with the others only having been slightly altered since their original publication. Personally I find it fascinating the concept that languages change often in terminology – however this is not one of those cases. The term “Oileáin Bhriotanacha” is a modern Irish language term for the “British Isles” in English. (NOT like “La Manche” / “English Channel”.) If the article is thus titled in English, why would anyone want to deviate away from that by using a particular way of referring to these islands which avoids version using the adjective “british” (which appears to be a central characteristic of the term)? Indeed, there are many terms in Irish for these islands, but there are also many terms in English – this article deals with one of them – the “British Isles”, which when rendered most accurately and directly (which in this case it can be) into Irish would be “Oileáin Briotanacha”. If the English article was entitled “The Islands of Western Europe”, of course it would be most appropriate to use “Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa”, but as it happens, this is not the case. I said the term had been used "for hundreds of years in many languages" – not that the term had been used specificallyin Irish. If the term hasn’t been used, you would presume that it wasn’t in use, or was fabricated (and yes the Irish government [the publishers] can fabricate as many things as anything else can). Of course there are obscure words in all languages that many native speakers have not heard tell of – this is not such a case, as the “British Isles” is not an obscure term, but a modern day geographical entity – it is where I live, in whatever language. Whoever wrote is should have made themselves aware of the fact that there are several terms in Irish to describe these islands, and should not have relied on one source – a dictionary which is out of date, and only used for reference for the most part. I don’t believe that what was on the article originally was balanced though – it didn’t reference everything, and left out the most obvious translation. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of Irish would probably be able to scramble together “Oileáin Bhriotanacha” or something that vaguely resembling that. I didn’t say that the original translation was wrong, but that it was inaccurate and unbalanced. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 18:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars and sloppy editing should STOP

Almost as soon as protection was removed, TharkunColl has again deleted references added to the article, asserting that they are POV. I have alerted the admin who put the protection on before. Second, Matt Lewis is describing multiple Oxford and Cambridge published books as "dime a dozen" academics and then editing in grammatical nonsense, e.g. "The term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where its use has been objected to[4] and by the government of the Republic of Ireland,[5] although it is still sometimes used by Members of the Irish parliament[6]", a sentence which makes no sense at all. I have reverted the changes back to one Matt Lewis made which he claims is to match with good practice. I don´t know, but let´s give him the benefit of the doubt. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please - just stop exaggerating: Obviously, it's the pamphlets and academic tracts I object to. I'll look at the prose - but the paragraph pluralised every uncited statement and dodgy citation - it was for too exaggerated. If you really could give me the "benefit of the doubt" that would be great. And why not look for examples of a genuine groundswell. I have spent a lot of my time doing so - and simply could not find any. Where are they? It the 'dissent' over the term has the weight you claim it has, you should have not trouble at all picking them out.

Ironically, If I found proper evidence I'd be on your side - though there would be little problem from anyone I'm sure, and we wouldn't be arguing. My gripe is that Wikipedia is being used as a political forum - and I question the wisdom of fanning anti-British sentiment. I've heard resentment that is borderline racism (for want of a better word) - with dates bitterly mentioned that are hundreds of years ago. Is that the best frame of mind to argue this cause? I pose philosophical questions like "Dublin was built by the British, but we can't remove that". I get no response.

There is simply a good reason this is not an issue at the moment. Think about it. It's called Ireland. Some day it may well be - but time must decide this. If people want to wave banners and push rivers, then Wikipedia is NOT the place to do it. I feel sure that a lot of wise Irish people would simply tell you to put them away. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you respond to this, Wotapalaver? I'm interested in your thoughts on the matter of Ireland and the Irish public. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts on Ireland and the Irish public? They verifiably exist. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you are editing nonsense into the article. That broken sentence is back. Well done. As for "academic tracts" and pamphlets, there are references from two Irish broadsheets, several Oxford, Cambridge and similar published books and one quote from an Irish poet. In addition, there are several references on the related pages that aren't cited in the intro, which I expect was done to avoid having hundreds of lines of text in one citation. Let's look at the published book references for a second.

"...I have called the Atlantic archipelago – since the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously." Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

"...what used to be called the "British Isles," although that is now a politically incorrect term." Finnegan, Richard B.;

Edward T. McCarron (2000). Ireland: Historical Echoes, Contemporary Politics. Boulder: Westview Press, p. 358. "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located off the northwest coast of continental Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago..."

Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217. "..the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular, for whom the Irish sea is or ought to be a separating rather than a linking element. Sensitive to such susceptibilities, proponents of the idea of a genuine British history, a theme which has come to the fore during the last couple of decades, are plumping for a more neutral term to label the scattered islands peripheral to the two major ones of Great Britain and Ireland."

Roots, Ivan (1997). "Union or Devolution in Cromwell's Britain". History Review.

The British Isles, A History of Four Nations, Second edition, Cambridge University Press, July 2006, Preface, Hugh Kearney. "The title of this book is ‘The British Isles’, not ‘Britain’, in order to emphasise the multi-ethnic character of our intertwined histories. Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term ‘Spain’.

Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation: Europe's House Divided 1490-1700. (London: Penguin/Allen Lane, 2003): “the collection of islands which embraces England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales has commonly been known as the British Isles. This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands, and a more neutral description is ‘the Atlantic Isles’” (p. xxvi)

Of course it seems that all these are now valueless "academic tracts" and not references and that you also can't write proper English. Please remind me why I should assume good faith. (not sure i put all the line breaks in the right place)Wotapalaver (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll properly address each of the above quotes later when I have time - none of it is as impressive as you think it is (and they actually serve to demonstrate the absence of anything superior). And none of it demonstrates a public groundswell. What I have seen (like the Folens example) actually shows the opposite of a public cry for change to me.

If you don't like the prose in that paragraph for heaven's sake just improve it. It is awkward because of the biased way the original paragraph was structured - I had to de-pluralise all the hype, and add some (citation needed)s. I appreciate it if you would stop saying I cannot write properly - it's a cheap shot and not true. As I've said I'll look at it again when I have some time - anyone can do this though, it doesn't have to be me.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on the Intro

I've followed this article for a long time without commenting much or just the occiasional minor comment/edit, some under an old username years ago and some as an anon. I havn't read the article for a while till this week and its dissapointing to see how the intro has declined. I'd like to make a few critical comments and a couple of suggestions, comparing the current intro versions ([12], [13]) with one from 21 January 2007 ([14]). I chose this one as it dates back to a time when I recall that the intro had been relatively agreed upon and settled.

My argument is, that with the exception of the translations to languages other than English, the intro should be reverted to the version as of 21 January 2007. Let me explain why:

The current intro is concerned almost entirely with the naming dispute. Whilst this is obviously important and requires an early introduction, this is also not particularly helpful to viewers unfamiliar with the term. Let me quote from Wikipedia:Lead section: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Compare the 21-01-07 intro: "The term British Isles can be misunderstood and is sometimes considered objectionable, mainly in Ireland." This succinctly and 'briefly describes the controversy with links to relevant articles. There could be debate over the term 'sometimes' (v 'often', 'occasionally' etc) but I've come to realise that such adverbs are almost always going to be disputed by someone and that this minor sort of debate is something we have to live with.

The current intro contains no information as to the islands climate or political history; the 21-01-07 intro clearly outlines a basic climate/geography and differentiates the current geopolitical status with an explanation behind how this has developed historically. Rather than confusingly stating that there is all this controversy about the word, wouldn't the article do a better job by soberly describing the geopolitical status of the islands in the intro and clarifying what is UK/Ireland?

There could be some minor changes to the 21-01-07 intro, but I think in general it does a much better job than the versions chosen now. I therefore propose that we revert to this version as a basis for the current intro: thoughts? --Pretty Green (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The version from Jan 2007 ignores the controversy entirely. The version of the intro from April 16th or 17th had been stable for a long time. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help but agree, in principal, that the older article has a better intro than the current article. --Bardcom (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

At least it was sensible English. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, the January version was better. (Incidentally it's not true that "it ignores the controversy entirely" - it clearly contains the sentence "The term British Isles can be misunderstood and is sometimes considered objectionable, mainly in Ireland." which is enough of a summary for the introduction.) Waggers (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) He's mentioning January 2007. It's not an adequate presentation of the controversy. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of notes

Clicking on the notes in the intro one might be forgiven for thinking one had been taken to a whole new article. Given that there already is another article dealing with this, I suggest we remove all this one-sided POV. TharkunColl (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the existence of controversy around the term is suddenly being denied, despite these references and notes, it seems we need more references to stop people using OR and POV to decide what should be in the article. The references (and even more references) exist. WP lives on reference. If there is a need to put in dozens of references to make people accept the facts then that may be what we need to do. Reading the talk archives I believe user sony youth knows the references reasonably well. Let's get him and some admins involved because this business of deleting references is unacceptable. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply piling up references that say exactly the same thing is unacceptable, and seems deliberately designed to attempt to persuade by cumulative effect. And unfortunately, only those with a political axe to grind can usually be bothered to go out and find them. Some Irish object - we only need one reference to say this. Some Irish don't object - we only need one reference to say this as well. TharkunColl (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Except reference exists to say that many Irish object, that the Irish government objects, that the term is increasingly avoided, that map and atlas makers are using it less or not at all, that UK published textbooks accept that the term is problematic, etc.,etc.,etc. It's important information. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and it belongs in British Isles naming dispute. Please remember that this article is about the British Isles themselves, not the naming controversy. That deserves an article to itself, which it has got. TharkunColl (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehm..if the controversy is significant enough to have its own page, surely it is significant enough to be mentioned in the intro of the main article. I believe policy actually requires it (been doing a bit of policy reading). And, what a surprise, that's what was in the intro before your recent selective addition of references. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing TharkunColl, perhaps you should talk to Matt Lewis about how the article was "piling up references that say exactly the same thing". He asserts that the references don't say anything at all. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What they say is purely anecdotal. There are even references to things like letters to newspapers, which is very shoddy scholarship in my opinion. The unpalatable truth is that no opinion poll has ever been done in Ireland on this issue. So all we can say is that some Irish avoid the term, and some don't. We cannot asign any sort of proportions to these opinions. TharkunColl (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)Is there an opinion poll the other way? That "British Isles" is used in Britain, or anywhere? I don't see you producing that data so I suspect it doesn't exist. What we do have is references from sources that are so respectable it's almost ridiculous saying that there is a problem, and using terms like "many", and we have you saying there isn't a problem. I know which one WP should believe. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the term doesn't exist in the language? That's what your statement amounts to. This can be easily disproved by the simple expedient of looking in a dictionary. And a dictionary, by the way, is a perfect Wikipedia source. TharkunColl (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that the term doesn't exist in the language. Don't be obtuse. I'm suggesting that you have no source to contradict the reputable published sources and that you have no source even to support that the term "British Isles" is a preferred term anywhere. Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn't. Does an opinion poll exist? Let's assume not. A dictionary will also define terms that are hardly if ever used anywhere, e.g. [15]. If I want to prove that this word is a common term, pointing to the fact that it's in a dictionary won't help. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It is used daily on the BBC weather reports, for example. If it was a rare or avoided term, this would not be the case. TharkunColl (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Please provide a verifiable reference that it is used daily on the BBC weather reports. Otherwise it's only anecdotal. This is applying YOUR standard to your own claims. Oh, maybe a book published by a major publishing company and written by a scholar of the BBC weather report contains a statement saying that it is used daily. Ah, but that would be an "academic tract" and we couldn't trust it. (sarcasm) Hmmm, maybe we should just believe that TharkunColl and Matt Lewis know everything and just take their word for it. (MORE sarcasm). There are available references. We use them. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll find the written references on the BBC website no doubt, though I really can't be bothered to check because it's you who are being obtuse now. The fact is that some people in Ireland use the term, and some don't. No one, not even you, can say what proportion of the Irish population do which. TharkunColl (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll find reference to the term on the BBC website, but will I find reference that says it's used daily in the weather report? If not, then we have only anecdotal evidence and we should presume it's only used sometimes since no-one, not even you, can say what proportion of BBC weather reports use the term. Please provide reference that says the BBS weather report uses the term daily. On the other hand there are references to "many", and words like "politically loaded" and (IIRC) "often". We must use them. As for me being obtuse, I reject the suggestion. I have NOT made edits or proposed to make edits to the intro of the article to suggest that the BBC weather report doesn't use the term, or that it "sometimes does and sometimes doesn't". Perhaps I should. You (and Matt Lewis) are the ones busy putting in one set of references and then saying that a matching set is POV, political, unbalanced, etc., that the references on the page are "academic tracts", POV, political, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Ok, enough mud-slinging. The truth is that both of you are right. Sometimes references can be hard to find and it's a lot easier to remove them than to add them, so any removal should be done very tentatively and probably with discussion here first. But equally, we don't need hordes of multiple references to support the same assertion (and the number of references quoted bears no relation to the number of people that agree with whatever they say!). I suggest that TharkunColl lists the references here that he sees as superfluous, along with his reasoning (eg. we don't need <reference 1> because that's already covered by <reference 2>; we shouldn't use <reference 3> because it's from a letter/blog/messageboard and therefore not a reliable source; etc.) and we can discuss each case on its own merits. And please, keep the discussion calm and civil. Waggers (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need, to be fair to both sides, are just two good, solid references. One to show that some Irish don't use the term, and one to show that some do. Government pronouncements have got nothing to do with how people use the language and have no place here (and in any case Irish ministers and MPs do use it). TharkunColl (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Originally, the article asserted that the term is contentious. This was disputed. References were provided. What appears to be happening now is that editors appear to have lost sight of the fact that the references are only there only to show that the term is disputed, as requested.

Given that it is accepted that the term is a disputed term (consensus indicates that this so), then a simple assertion in the lead paragraph, with a reference, is all that is required. The attempt to dispute the fact that the term is contentious requires a consensus here first before attempting to alter the original assertion in the lead paragraph. I suggest a straw poll is you wish to test if the consensus has changed. Flooding the lead paragraph with references, for either position or POV, is a form of edit warring. Please stop.

The article's lead paragraph should revert to a simple single line that states that the term is contentious, with links to the dispute page and the terminology page, and a link to a single reference to back up the assertion. The current level of links and references are unnecessary, and should be removed and moved to the dispute page. Bardcom (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What we need is simple text reflecting the available references, which say that the term is problematic in relation to Ireland. Other FACTS are that companies which previously made maps and atlases called "British Isles" no longer do so; that several recent books on The British Isles have described problems with the term; that the Irish Government and the Irish Embassy in London have both made statements saying that they don't like/use the term; that at least two Irish broadsheets have had opinion pieces about the term; that British authors have described the term as "politically loaded", etc., etc.,etc.
What we have here is a couple of editors trying to reduce or eliminate the references which support a verifiable fact that they find disagreeable for some reason on the bizarre grounds that there are too many references supporting this verifiable fact and then also they are trying to reduce the text which reflects those references. This is so anti-WP that it is scary. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't need any text to reflect all the available references that mention the British Isles on this article. This article is about the islands themselves, not about the naming controversy. Yes, the controversy needs a mention here, but no more than that. Those references that are about the controversy belong in the article on that subject; as Bardcom says, we only need one on this article. Nobody is trying to reduce or eliminate any references from Wikipedia; the aim is just to make sure they're put in the right place. Waggers (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

... and before anyone removes any reference from this article, please make sure that (if required) that reference is transferred to the naming controversy article; as I said earlier, references can be hard to find so removing them completely without good reason is not a good move. Waggers (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT mean that we should describe ALL the references in the intro. The text that was there until April 16th or so was fine. It summarized lots of references quite briefly, but it reflected the content of the references accurately. This recent madness started when TharkunColl started to add one-sided and highly disingenuous edits and Matt Lewis started to assert that the very existence of a controversy was exaggerated, that the references were "academic tracts", etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for simplifying lead paragraph

I suggest the following sentence

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland^[1] and is avoided by the government of the Republic of Ireland,^[2].

That's all that's required. Any more information belongs in the dispute article. --Bardcom (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not avoided by the government of the republic. It was used by Sile deValera in a speech when she was, somewhat ironically given this debate, heritage and culture minister (or some such title). TharkunColl (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Bardcom: a general statement is all that is needed, or belongs, here, with a reference to dispute page. Thark, we all know that some members of any government will on occasion not toe the party line. The Irish government are officially opposed, as several editors have said. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that the Written Answers given as part of government procedings are incorrect? If you are disputing this and the reference provided, please provide a reference that points to alternative government policy. Otherwise the fact remains. Also, in relation to the oft-quoted Sile deValera speech, in what context was it used? Was it used in a geographical context - which is the least contentious use of all - or was it used as a sloppy short-hand reference to the UK, or to the UK and Ireland? Perhaps the sentence can be made less ambiguous by changing it to the following which follows the wording of the Written Answers submitted during official Irish government proceedings:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland^[3] and is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense by the government of the Republic of Ireland,^[4]. --Bardcom (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference itself is being misused. The quote simply says that it isn't a official term and is not used. The reason for this is not given. It may have nothing to do with the controversy but because they have no use for it. Having the statement in the lead gives it undue weight and its placement gives the impression that they purposely boycott the term. josh (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's a very good point. While I don't agree that it has *nothing* to do with the fact that many Irish feel it is a controversal term, I do agree that there is nothing to specifically link it with the official avoidence of the term. As such, lets drop the reference from the lead paragraph. What about this amendment:

The term British Isles is controversial to many Irish people when used in relation to the Irish state^[5] --Bardcom (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that that version would be "many". When we try to quantify the extent of the controversy in the lead it always leads to an edit war. In my opinion we cannot properly outline the extent and it should be left in the body of the article. My suggestion would be along the lines of:

Due to increasing controversy regarding the term British Isles several alternative names have been suggested for the region including British and Irish Isles and Islands of the North Atlantic (IONA). josh (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the controversy is increasing? Or even that it's a controversy (outside Wikipedia)? TharkunColl (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus here is that it is, in fact, a controversial term. If you want to test the consensus, I suggest you conduct a straw poll. Bardcom (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It must be a controversal term. If it weren't, there wouldn't be all these discussions & disputes on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's the only place there are such disputes, because a vocal politicised minority can dominate articles. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Political sensitivities on Wikipedia, tend to always make discussions colorful; to be sure. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to test consensus, conduct a straw poll. Otherwise, you're pushing a POV. Any comments on the suggested replacement sentence below? --Bardcom (talk) 00:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus among half a dozen editors is valueless compared to published references, which say many find it objectionable and that it is often objectionable to Irish sensibilities. If anyone wants to challenge this then they need more than their own opinion on the matter. They need a reference. I've been reading as much as I can find and I have NOT found a single book which says anything like "a few marginal Irish Republican politically motivated editors on Wikipedia find the term objectionable". If such a reference exists, will someone please produce it? Wotapalaver (talk) 11:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The term British Isles is controversial to Irish people when used in relation to the Irish state^[6] --Bardcom

Not sure I like it, since the whole naming issue around the Irish state is awkward to begin with. Also, the fact that the term is probably more disliked by Nationalists in Northern Ireland and more liked by Unionists is also relevant, and that's Ireland, not just the Republic of Ireland. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It is controversial to some Irish people. Your wording implies all, which is not the case. TharkunColl (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sharia Law in the UK is controversial to some British people. Others find it perfectly reasonable. The fact is that it is controversial. There is reference that the term "British Isles" is objectionable to many Irish, often, officially not used, etc.,etc.,etc. This business with some is completely disingenuous. It's like saying "The term British isles is sometimes used on the BBC". Yes, sometimes they use it, sometimes they don't. It's true, but it's a pretty meaningless thing to say unless you can demonstrate a base. TharkunColl finds half a dozen references us individual usage of the term by members of the Irish parliament and claims this demonstrates something vital. This is OR. As I've demonstrated there are a similar number of references to people in the Irish Parliament using the term "British Isles" in a way that excludes Ireland. Neither of us can find the potentially thousands or millions of times people could have used the term but didn't and therefore neither can demonstrate anything valuable. I can't demonstrate that use of "The British Isles" excluding Ireland is common or uncommon or the way it is most often used. TharkunColl's references can't demonstrate anything either, unless there is a comparison with non-use, which becomes a unicorn hunt. Normally doing something like proving a unicorn does not exist is difficult or impossible and providing reference for non-use of a word or phrase could be similarly difficult but hey - we have references that demonstrate the word or phrase is being avoided, is objected to, is not used. This fact highly is significant. Published books say that the phrase is being avoided, is disliked, etc. There is reference. We use it. We do NOT start disguising OR with disingenuous phrasing. Remember, without clear reference and using TharkunColl's reasoning it's TRUE and equally valid for the introduction that "The BBC sometimes uses the term The British Isles and sometimes doesn't." Wotapalaver (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. Why are editors apparently able to continuously accuse people of being a vocal politicized minority and of thereby essentially aiming to vandalize WP without demonstrating some facts? Aren't there policies of civility? Wotapalaver (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) I've made a considerable shortening to the lead, tidied up the references so they're more readable, added the alternate translations in Irish. I moved the less important point about the inter-governmental relations to the naming dispute page. Inter governmental relations seems a subsidiary point, although the fact that the UK government ALSO avoids the term does seem to demonstrate that they respect Irish (or at least ROI) issues with the term. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...and put in a again a line saying "many Irish object to the term". You have no evidence to support this language. I have changed to:

"The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] and intergovernmental use is discouraged in the Republic of Ireland.[5]"

I used "intergovernmental" as before it suggested the Irish government discouraged the term full-stop! ("Intergovernmental" is a quote.) Why is the word "controversial" not enough? Why do we need endless wiki-links and exaggerated language to enforce the point? It is militant (in the exaggerated OTT sense) propaganda to popularise an untimely cause, and not at all what Wikipedia is here for.--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A problem I am particularly sensitive to is a pattern showing a lack of assuming good faith for editors. I believe that most editors are trying to edit the article fairly, and will abide by consensus. Please respect WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. In light of this, there is no place for phrases such as vocal politicized minority or even propaganda to popularise an untimely cause. It serves no useful or good purpose. Let's keep our attention on the content, not on assumptions on other editor's motivation. Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to ask questions here as my 'exaggeration, notability and weight' arguments are just roundly ignored. I have also seen clear radicalisation in this debate over the months - I have every right to say this when I think it is adversely effecting Wikipedia. Where is the groundswell? It is such an important question it cannot be ignored. I strongly believe that political motives here are overriding the lack of evidence for public support. If we can understand that better we can make more weighted edits. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, the current phrase "controversial in relation to Ireland" is a small bit inexact still. Controversial in relation to what? To whom? Although perhaps the phrase gets worse if further context is added, if you read the sentence without any prior knowledge, it does not enlighten. Also, I support the use of the "official" text, but the sentence above doesn't capture it properly. What about using more of the exact wording: "and is not an officially recognised term in any legal or inter-governmental sense". Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind an exact quote as long as the context is then not exaggerated. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt. Read the references. Here are two DIRECT quotes. (1) the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities (2) Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable. These are DIRECT quotes from a Cambridge University Press history of the British Isles and a Routledge text. Note, often offensive and many find it objectionable. Also note that another ref just says "the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject", which could be taken to suggest that all Irishmen reject the term, but which I have not used that way. Your edit of ".. intergovernmental use is discouraged in the Republic of Ireland" is an inaccurate representation of the references. Your text does NOT match the references in any way. Bardcom, I believe that "controversial in relation to Ireland" is actually quite accurate. The term isn't just controversial in Ireland, since it's been objected to also in the USA. It's not just objected to by Irish people, since there are others who note the objection or even who object. The controversy is about whether the term is suitable, polite to use about Ireland. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you stop asking me to read the references when I have told you I have? There is no substantial evidence to back-up your "many people" line: I have spent hours looking for it over the months, as I have told you before. You can name-drop the words "Oxford and Cambridge" as much as you like, there is still no evidence of public opinion on this - so we CANNOT make it look like there is. Academic words can be found and spun about literally anything - they must NOT be blown out of proportion. You should have a wide choice of such words - you don't. Do you think I would be writing all this if you had solid and substantial evidential support? You are wrong if you think that I am politically motivated myself - I would back this if it was fair and encyclopedic - but in that case it wouldn't need 'backing', as there simply would not be an issue over it! --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can ya'll stop the edit warring & concentrate on ironing out things here, people? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Would love to. Tried to make the discussion on the controversy in the intro shorter. Moved a section of it to the naming dispute page. But now Matt Lewis keeps editing in completely screwy text and keeps insisting that the references don't exist. I can no longer assume good faith with him. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please stop exaggerating! We have to be objective to write an encyclopedia: you must understand that. As I keep saying: your given references do not back-up your "many people in Ireland" line, for a number of reasons. (they are not all Irish, they are not public opinion, they represent only a very small amount in the sense of quality publishing). In the light of this, you must stop putting the line back in. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya'll know what comes next, page protection. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Update- I've requested full protection for this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this will help - the article can get protected on a misleading version, and other edits cannot be made while it is locked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a reference which says that it has been Irish government position since at least 1947 that "The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged” [16] Apparently Ireland and the UK had a bit of a war of terminology right up until 1998 where Ireland wouldn't refer to "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" because it might be seen as admitting the validity of Northern Ireland and the UK tried not to refer to the ROI as Ireland, since that might be an issue in the same way. "British Isles" is the term that is still officially not used and apparently also discouraged. I also see again that Matt Lewis is managing (again) to say that the word many doesn't mean many. WOW! Denial at this level must take effort. As for protection, I already asked an admin to look at this about an hour ago. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have written to your Talk page. Your Chicago journal link doesn't work. I see spin here - I don't see balance, notability, weight. You need substantive quality evidence. If today was actually the climate for it you might find it - it's jsut not been the climate in recent years so you won't. If anything this is a debate for the future. Who knows what will happen in the future? Maybe it the term will just solely become the histroical and Geographical term it is to so many, or maybe it will change. Dublin was built by the Britsh - yet is obviously Irish: It's the way the world works. Where is the public cry for change? Where is the dissent? Folens said they had no actual complaints. Pages from academic compendiums cannot be quoted without weight. We need more, better and more varied evidence to say "many". --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have written on your talk page too, so what? I see references from major sources that are 100% clear. Again, these are histories and historians of the British Isles saying that the term is objectionable, often and to many Irish people. Please provide ANY reference that contradicts the references already supplied that even gives a hint that what you are suggesting is true. Otherwise it is your personal opinion and you are vandalizing WP by imposing your personal opinion over published reference works from serious publishers. _{(I have removed the "cookie set" piece from the end of the Chicago reference. It should work now.)} Wotapalaver (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection renewed

I see edit-warring has resumed. Renewed the protection (one week), to encourage disputes to stay here and get worked out. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also ~~removed a large section of~~ added a <ref> to the intro because the ref was malformed. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Smart move, Deacon. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Progress to date

I don't believe this page needs protection just yet - despite the continued editing, progress *is* being made. The article lead paragraph is better today than 2 days ago. But, there is more to do, and it might be better to agree the lead para here on the talk page before editing the article. In addition, I don't believe the reference to Folens dropping the term is appropriate for the lead para. <since I wrote this, Deek has protected the page, and removed the reference>

Matt, Wotapalaver, how close or far away are we to a consensus on the lead paragraph? When it is largely agreed with both of you, as the most active on opposing viewpoints, I believe it would be appropriate to ask the wider community to agree - perhaps a straw poll? This discussion is only to agree the lead paragraph - it might be appropriate to move some content to a different article or to a different section in this article. We are working on the assumption that everybody is working together in good faith to develop a lead paragraph through consensus.

What we appear to have agreed to date:

No long list of references in the opening paragraph.
Mention of the "controversy" / "dispute" is appropriate in the lead paragraph, pointing to the dispute article

Having the "dispute" article (a POV fork imo) is for "See also" only - sorry. It's a fork and should be merged. I would compromise with "See also".--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No elaboration needed in this article - the dispute article can contain the details of the dispute

this is logical as things stand - though the dispute article should be merged here imo.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "British Isles" is controversial (accepted as fact / by consensus. Matt?)

I have never said it wasn't controversial, or removed the word. The word "controversial" always needs qualifying - it must be done farly. Everything is controversial to some degree.--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The government of Ireland has an official policy that states it has no weight in legal or intergovernmental use.

"Intergonvernmental" is the key word. We mustn't make it look like the Irish government actively and universally discourage the word. Also - it is a geographical word not a legal one anyway - so how uncommon an governmental act is this? Is it really a strident move to label it as 'non-legal'?--Matt Lewis (talk) 18:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"Intergonvernmental" is the key word. Hmmmmmm. I see...... Sarah777 (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What we are still trying to agree on:

(controversial in relation to what?) The term is controversial in relation to Ireland (because?)
(controversial to whom) The term is controversial to people in Ireland (people?) (How to quantify this? Is it just people in Ireland - what about elsewhere? Suggestions please?)

The current sentence simply reads:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland.

In my opinion, this sentence is only half a thought and incomplete. The sentence needs (at least) to explain controversial to who, and ideally should have a brief explanation of why (although if this is too complex, perhaps not). --Bardcom (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is simple. We have solid references that are the highest possible standard saying that the term is often objectionable, or that it is objectionable to many people in Ireland. This is important information, it is still in dispute, and must be reflected in the intro. We have another view saying that the references are crap and that the level of objection must remain undescribed because there are no good references. The two views are irreconcilable. Either we live with references or we don't. Either WP works with what references say or it's a formalized version of Usenet and the loonies will win. I'm getting policy guidance on the acceptability of Cambridge University press (etc.,) sources. Further, I found reference that the official position of the Irish government on the term British Isles dates back to 1947. Finally, I believe that the naming dispute is a content fork of this page, which means that the main page must contain an adequate presentation of the controversy. One word is not adequate. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I beleive the examples are weak (and I keep giving the reasons why - not calling them "crap") and I will go through them one-by-one to show why, soon. I'll have to cut and paste (I've written a varient of this so many times):

RE backing-up that "many Irish" dispute the term: The collected evidence is not strong, not current, not actually all Irish, is not from the actual people of Ireland (as the intro suggests), and is in very short supply. It is not enough to warrant the word "many" - more must be found (and believe me I've been looking). I believe it doesn't exist simply because it is not currently the climate to go after the term "British Isles": the climate is one concerned with consolidation, mediation, focus and peace. Wikipedia is not a forum to river-push and encourage an anti-"British Isles" climate. It does not matter that "most" appears in the evidence or not - we must weight the evidence.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I acknowledge that you are putting a lot of effort into trying to improve the lead paragraph. Can you put forward a suggestion for the lead paragraph? Do you agree with the summary assumptions on what we have agreed to date, listed above? --Bardcom (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph reads very badly at the moment. Quite apart from the unncessary three Irish language translations - only the first one is necessary - I don't see any need to reference a controversy at all in this paragraph. There's a whole section about it later on. After all, British Isles is not about the so-called controversy, it's about a geographical entity, and that's all that should be mentioned in the lead. On the subject of the naming section, it appears to be complete overkill to have numerous references to back up some of the points being made. One, or two at the most, are all that's required. To have so many is nothing short of POV-promoting, in both directions.Silas Stoat (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

On the translations, why should there be only one, when different dictionaries translate it so differently? It's interesting, and true, that there are different translations. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Only the literal translation is needed, and that appears to be the first one. An online translator gives this result. Having more than one is tantamount to saying "we don't like that translation, so here are some alternatives". On the subject of multiple (many) references, it's akin to shouting the referenced point from the rooftops - "this opinion is more valid than others, just look at the number of references we've found"; it's POV when it's overdone. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why pick the first one? Why not the others? They're from solid dictionaries. An online translator would not translate "The English Channel" into "La Manche", yet "La Manche" is correct in French, not "Le Canal Anglais". Different terms may exist in other languages. On the question of shouting the point from the rooftops, it seems to be needed. From reading the discussion archives the current set of references is already a shortened list. Besides, I believe that policy suggests that where facts are in dispute, plentiful reference is recommended. Wotapalaver (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the following is reasonable;-

No long list of references in the opening paragraph. Fine, references can be (and already were) consolidated but since the simple facts are in dispute the references are needed. As for lots of references being POV promoting (silas Stoat's point), references can't promote POV unless they're unreliable references. Good references simply are.
Mention of the "controversy" / "dispute" is appropriate in the lead paragraph, pointing to the dispute article. Fine, but the mention must be an adequate summary of the content forked article on the naming dispute.
No elaboration needed in this article - the dispute article can contain the details of the dispute. Fine. There is no real elaboration in the article already, it's in the content fork.
The term "British Isles" is controversial (accepted as fact / by consensus. Matt?). The term is actually described in several references as "objectionable". Controversial is a softer description, but can be used as long as the controversy is summarized adequately.
The government of Ireland has an official policy that states it has no weight in legal or intergovernmental use. Yes, the government of Ireland has apparently regarded the term as a not-to-be-used and as a to-be-discouraged misnomer since at least 1947 and has recently reiterated this.

What we are still trying to agree on:

(controversial in relation to what?) The term is controversial in relation to Ireland (because?) The term is objectionable to many Irish people, probably largely because the term has a political implication but also because many Irish people do not identify Ireland as in any way British. It's simply felt to be a misnomer. I expect that the formula "in relation to Ireland" was originally intended as a short way to express this and a way of avoiding long discussions about Irish people everywhere or only in Ireland, or the differences between ROI and NI, etc.
(controversial to whom) The term is controversial to people in Ireland (people?) (How to quantify this? Is it just people in Ireland - what about elsewhere? Suggestions please?) Suggestion is, as always, that we reflect the references as closely as possible. If someone wants to avoid the terms "often" or "many" then they need to find reference, not just to keep attacking the sources. As for who and where, see my thoughts on "in relation to".

Sorry, but I'm just trying to stick to references. They're what we're supposed to follow. If the references said "a few people don't like it" then that's what the article should day. The references DO NOT say that. The references say many and often. Unless someone has something else then this is what we should say. It's relevant, important, verifiable and doesn't take a lot of words. Many is one word. Often is one word. Even if we used them both we'd have two words. That is hardly an unreasonable lenghtening of the intro and yet highly informative and relevant. Seems like good criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the reference says "Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter"? We only follow the references if they pass notability and weight. This is another extreme example, but there are countless more statements saying "the earth is flat!!" than there are saying "the earth isn't flat". We must judge weight and notablility by consensus sometimes - not by counter-weighing citations by the kilo. References have a quality - and a 'plural' statement like this demands a plural amount of quality refs. This citation issue is what Talk Pages were made for: and I am here saying the evidence is not strong enough.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the discussion archives I found a page of references, which user Sony Youth mentioned during a previous campaign to have the level of controversy downplayed. It is here [17]. It contains many more discussions from serious sources of how the term is used/not used/is controversial, etc.,. A sample from the editor of the OUP history of the British Isles. "The expression is not uncontroversial, especially to many in Ireland, for whom the very word ‘British’ implies an unacceptable politics of dominion." Now we have OUP and CUP describing the term as controversial or objectionable to "many" in Ireland. Perhaps OUP and CUP are part of TharkunColl's vocal minority or Matt Lewis river-pushing effort. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had read through the archives you will have seen my responses to Sony Youth about that page - I believe it is full of the multitudinous 'tracts' that I mentioned to you earlier: they have a small weight but you cannot call them 'serious' sources, and you can fill the Irish Sea with the amount they publish 'academically' like that these days (on any kind of radicalised subject - read the tiles for hints.) I went through the whole page a couple months ago - I felt the lack of better evidence told the whole story: this is the limit of what the 'opposers' can find. Where is the broadsheet article questioning whether the recent BBC 'Coast' TV series expressly about the British Isles (and visiting Dublin) is 'politically incorrect'?. Where is the report of Irish people calling for change somewhere (Europe perhaps)? Where is anything like that? The Folens example of a publisher removing it stated they had received no public complaints! As I said to Sony youth regarding that page, the evidence shown me 'for' paints the same picture as I am finding myself: that this is not a popular approach. Wikipedia has to 'weight' and back up its statements: 'many' is comparatively too strong and is not the right word for this. The truth that I see is that comparatively 'hardly any' people are actively for this recognised geographical term being dropped - and very few are harping on about how undesirable it it. It's not the climate, not the time. As the Irish Times said when reporting Folens - it's a Wikipedia thing! Most people can handle the historical distance and geographic sensibility. And a government stating it is not a legal word means nothing - it never was!

By the way - can you stop using my name in this constant personal manner - you sound far too much like another (absent) editor for my comfort. Are you really suggesting I'm trying to 'turn a tide' against a 'natural change'? (that is reminiscent too). I'm just asking you for popular, substantial and credible evidence to support the intensity of your edits.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. Hugh Kearney, who's a pretty big deal, says many find it a problematic term in his introduction. Davies agonized about it. Baycroft & Hewitson and John Earl Joseph in major studies of nationalism mention that it is exceedingly objectionable to Irish nationalists. There's no reason not to say "many in Ireland" in the intro. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see a single reason to include it. Irish nationalists are in effect a 'sub-group' - so that would have to be qualified. (And is it the climate not to qualify it?). Who are Kearney's "many"? The people? Kearney himself continually uses the word for contemporary situations in his "British Isles" book. I'd also add as an aside that Kearney wrote this book because of the clear combined history, and this term is the geographical one that covers it. We have to have a term, and I see no great 'movement' for another one (only weak refs that are not stong enough). If "many" Irish really objected, wouldn't it be more of an issue? Outside of history books it isn't. "Many Irish object" is too much, and the climate isn't there for it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, anybody feel like going door-to-door throughout the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, to get an exact number on how many people 'object' to the the term British Isles? It seems that may be the only way, to confirm or deny these arguments. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If there were studies of people doing such sociological research it would be a useful thing! Alas no one has seen any. And who would embark on it in this climate anyway? It just isn't the day for this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The references provided appear to be of sufficient quality to be acceptable, and there are little or no references to the contrary - i.e. show that Irish people accept and happily use the term. The personal opinion of some editors may be that they don't like to accept them, but the assertation that Irish people find the term contentious appears to be supported by proper references, and more importantly, has become the consensus for this article. If the consensus needs to be tested, I suggest a straw poll. Let me add - I don't like straw polls very much, but perhaps it is a good thing if it results in a lead paragraph that is NPOV. --Bardcom (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A straw pole in here? Have you seen the woodwork? And the IP's? You are right - polls in these contested cases are generally a bad idea!--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you may take it that the attitude of the established (non-Unionist NI) Irish editors here reasonably reflects Irish opinion on being described as living on a "British" Island. That would be, what, 80% against? Sarah777 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The irony. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you grasp the concept fully. I see that you plumbed for your name Matt - how does that work? Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd not noticed that! (it was "plummed" once). By the way - take the odd peek at the personal tone your edits (like the one below too). I'm on the case re footwear as well - it's a little wiffy in here at times. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, you may be the only person in the whole of Wikipedia who will call Cambridge and Oxford published texts "not serious sources", and "of small weight". As for tracts and them writing on "radicalised subjects", textbooks on the History of the British Isles hardly qualify as either, and that is where several of the references are. As for what you see when you read these terms, you apparently cannot see the words many and often in the sources. As for broadsheet references, there are already two. You have still not found a single reference that contradicts the references provided, which are of the highest quality. The burden of verifiability is already more than met. If you can find a SINGLE case of a Cambridge or Oxford published history asserting that - as you put it - Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter then there may be a reason to consider your points as something more than the rantings of someone with a political point to prove and who is engaging in deliberate vandalism of a Wikipedia article. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Is exaggeration an incurable disease? You are never going to address/see my points are you? You will just carry on calling me "blind". Remind me which are two broadsheet references? Is one the Folens example (who stated they had no public complaints) that also mentions Wikipedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is exaggeration an incurable disease? Surely you should be telling us, not asking us? Sarah777 (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What have I exaggerated? --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt - you have all but accused me of breaching WP:NPA and of having malodorous feet in the same paragraph. Chutzpah is a word that springs to mind here. Irony doesn't do you justice. Sarah777 (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

More reference, following the hints above. "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", from Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious John E. Joseph, published by Macmillan . [User:Wotapalaver|Wotapalaver]] (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

...does not go towards supporting "many Irish find the term objectionable/controversial". You could find 100 such books and I would still ask for wider examples (like Folens - but without the bit where they say "no parent actually made a complaint"). I want to see evidence of what the public think - because I don't think they are interested. "Objectionable", "controversial" and "many" are all strong words in an encyclopaedia.

I'm sorry, but - "Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious"? Maybe I'm an old cynic. At least you've chosen Macmillan and not someone totally unrecognisable! I used to run a secondhand bookshop for a while and I've just know what gets published, and how easy it is to be published. I started by vowing never to throw away a single book - I ended up having to pass books on for nothing, even bin some in extreme cases. I also know how much Oxbridge stuff there is out there too, though you are right to say they hold more credence. Kearney (who wrote British Isles - the big tome you quote from) is happy with using the term for modern Britain - as are so many people. Whether you like it or not, the use of the word in the UK does counter-balance your argument. "Many in Ireland"? I don't think it would be so widely used if this was the case. Popular and peak-time programmes like "Coast" (history of the British Isles coastline) (which was excellent) wouldn't constantly reference the word - even when going to Dublin (which they stressed was built by the British)! The historical view (much like the geographical one) is to use it - and histories of dissent will cover the dissent. Kearneys "British Isles" book is a good example - it does both!

How am I to find the equivalent amount of "Irish are happy with British Isles" quotes? It just isn't news! Same for "Hitler was not a Finnish pole vaulter!" (an extreme example, as I said) - it's just not news, and doesn't 'prove' the opposite is true! It's up to you to provide enough weight to support a very strong statement. (although, as I keep saying, I have spent a long time looking for it too). It's an old trick to say the citations are there - so Wikipedia has only to quote from them. Life is more complicated than that. Fortunately we have a Talk Page and the policy of consensus to stop the "statement in citation = statement in Wikipedia" equation being taken to extremes. The article has a context of its own and is part of an encyclopaedia - it must be balanced, and represent the full picture. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How am I to find the equivalent amount of "Irish are happy with British Isles" quotes? You can't Matt - because there is no equivalent amount. There are almost no Irish "happy with" the term "British Isles". Can't find what isn't there. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not been advocating "a very strong statement". Others may have in the past, but I have been advocating a statement that is practically a verbatim quote from any one of several Oxford/Cambridge/etc. books on the British Isles. Matt Lewis, on the other hand, insists that even if there were 100 such references he would not accept them. I suspect a search for consensus is impossible with someone who ignores the foundation of Wikipedia. For Matt Lewis the rule seems to be "if it doesn't match what I think, it doesn't go in Wikipedia". As for Matt Lewis' inability to find the reference where it describes how the Irish are happy with the term, we're not talking news, we're talking scholarly references, and the scholarly references available pretty much all say the same thing - that the term is objectionable, offensive, etc., to many Irish people. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

When I say stop "exaggerating" - do you know what it means? You are behaving like a 'one trick pony': You ignore all my points and exaggerate some aspect of what I've said, and then further exaggerate about the evidence you have. You do this almost every time. You can only have problem finding the citations I am asking for. "the scholarly references available" you say all "say the same thing" are merely the ones you can find that back you up!!! But an account of dissent is merely an account of dissent. Look at the amount of times British Isles is used normally in historical and academic texts (let alone anywhere else)! There is no comparison. You are imagining this world of criticism based purely on a motley and limited handful of mixed citations that quickly tail off into minor tracts. They are not enough to counter such a widely-used geographic term such as this. Please - step back and have another look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) And more reference. "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists.....it is as simple to refer to Britain and Ireland or to recognize that the term 'British Isles' was in widely accepted and common usage during the period covered by this chapter." What is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 By Timothy Baycroft, Mark Hewitson, published by Oxford. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A nation is a notion shared by like-minded individuals. Sarah777 (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) When references are found, can you make sure that they make their way to the reference page [18]. With regard to the debate, keep in mind that there is no requirement for everybody to share the same opinion, and Matt is entitled to voice an opposing opinion and is acting in good faith. It's enough that a consensus forms, and from the references, and the comments here, I believe a consensus has formed that use of the word "many" is fine. Can we agree on a sentence for the lead paragraph? The references page can be linked to the sentence. By my reckoning, it's now something along the lines of the following:

The term British Isles is controversial to many people when used in relation to Ireland
Many Irish people object to the term British Isles in relation to Ireland

Progress is still being made. If there is not the basis of agreement in one of the sentences above, please make further suggestions. If many people object (relatively), let's straw-poll some sentences to test where consensus is at. --Bardcom (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Over such a word? No - we can't poll over this. Consensus is more complex than a head count. There are plenty of people out there who will follow my sense, even if few here do. This issue has always been crowded by the same clutch of anti-BI people - I wouldn't accept a straw poll by them, or anyone really (I follow Wikipedia's recommendations in not favouring them and sticking to discussion. Polls work where this issue is benign and everyone is happy with the poll taking place).

Again, the new Matt Lewis fact acceptability criteria;- "if it doesn't match what I think, it doesn't go in Wikipedia". Woohoo! As for Crowded by "the same bunch of anti-BI people", Matt Lewis is again asserting things with no evidence. A read through the archives gives many different people over time. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Matt, a straw poll is not a vote, so it doesn't matter what the editor volume is. A straw poll attempts to test a consensus based on discussion, references, etc. It will give an opportunity for the many editors that are keeping quiet and reading this page to voice their opinions. Polls are not for simple benign issues either - it's to test to see if a consensus exists or if a different consensus emerges. So far, the consensus appears to accept that there are enough references to support the assertion that many people object or find the term contentious. Your objections have been well articulated and have been heard, but do not appear to have affected consensus. Moving on from that, I have suggested two sentences above. I believe these sentences adequately make the point, in a NPOV fashion, and without the bloated references that existed before. If you have any further points to make that we haven't heard before, feel free to make them, and I would like to hear if you agree to any of the suggestions or if you want to propose a suggestion of your own. --Bardcom (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the facts - as demonstrated by the references - are serially challenged by people who believe they have a particular personal-and-all-holy-source-of-knowledge on the topic, keeping the references is important. At the moment the objections to "many" and "often" consist of asking idiotic hypothetical questions like "what if a source said that Hitler was a Finnish pole vaulter?" and deserve no further consideration. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Population density

The map illustrating the population density, as well as its caption, do not state the unit. So one may wonder whether it is people per square mile or km. I would guess square km. Is any one sure and would like to add this information. Tomeasy (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That graph was made by user Sony Youth. You'll have to ask him. It's difficult to reliably back calculate. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime, I have found it out by myself. It's per km^2. I am just waiting for the page protection to be mitigated. Tomeasy (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must these Irish rebel?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why must these Irish persist in offending everybody? We can all get along very well until the Irish persist with this Irish thing. One would think that they ought to be grateful for inclusion in Britain's domains. Britain is, after all, the greatest power in world history. It has helped hundreds of millions of rather underdeveloped (to be polite) persons across the world. To be included is the greatest honour for all. The British Isles is a glorious concept uniting all the disparate tribes under Her Majesty, the Queen of England. It is, in its truest sense, civilisation. Such talk about a separate Irish identity would send a shiver to the spine of any person concerned that these islands do not return to the barbarous state in which they were when those Irish ruled their own affairs. The British Isles, and its symbolism, should be defended by all who cherish our hard fought freedoms and advances 86.42.102.87 (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear hear. Britannia rules the waves. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this ranting, is helping. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I detect a double agent. TharkunColl (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

86.42.102.87 & 86.27.230.177 does seem similar. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ranting? If there's any ranting done here, old boy, it is by those troublesome Irish. Everything was quite fine until those Irish rose up and started with this Irish thing. Now the glory that the term the British Isles represents is expected to be sacrificed at the altar of their recent discovery of an Irish identity? Unacceptable. They should just accept what we tell them they are. If we let them away with this Irish silliness before we know it the entire realm will be a cacophony of barbarous identities. All is lost. The noble work of forging a shared English identity on these islands by Elizabeth, Oliver and William- all lost. They've just got far too cocky since we allowed them to have their land back. 86.42.102.87 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very droll. Incidentally, I doubt if any real Englishman would speak of forging a shared "English" identity across the British Isles. Go back and do a bit more research into your character, old boy. TharkunColl (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One may not speak of it, and of course we are speaking Welsh and Irish here and living under Celtic law with the headquarters of the British Isles in Dublin, Ireland rather than London, England. The British Isles is diversity on England's terms. Without England, it is just chaos once again.

Hmmmmm. And certainly well worth archiving it is too! (Not me btw). Sarah777 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean you didn't archive it or you didn't write it? It was no way written by a "Brit"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Very droll Matt. I neither wrote nor archived it! Though I suspect it was written by a troll - of whatever nationality. Sarah777 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And while I'm at it I wish to state that I'm not IP 78.19.204.211 either. Honest. Sarah777 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic drops usage

The National Geographic can now be added to the long list of organisations which have dropped this [rather jingoistic] British term. They have replaced it with the term 'British and Irish Isles'. I have added The Sunday Tribune article on this story to the opening paragraph as the Irish Government's objection to the term is articulated in the same article: http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82652. P.S. If the democratically-elected government of Ireland has put on record its objection to the term, a stronger word than 'many' is needed to describe the amount of objections to this very controversial term in Ireland. That this objection is then incorporated into all international agreements between the Irish and British states leaves absolutely no doubt as to that objection, and acceptance of this objection at the highest level of the British state. 'Many' is an understatement. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

This is all wild exaggeration (so I have amended the section title - I removed "drops"):

Dreadfully illiterate bullshit. Restored.213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Where has National Geographic itself said it is dropping usage of the word?

It must have dropped the entire sentence on your head. Let's try it again for baby infants (no offence to any baby infants reading this): 'The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland."'

Confirmation of the change is on the National Geographic's style guide: http://stylemanual.ngs.org/intranet/styleman.nsf/Alpha+Summaries%5C-+B+-/$first/?OpenDocument I direct you especially to this part: 'The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland."' Well? 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

They changed the larger name on that plate, they still use the term "British Isles": I think I've seen this example before - I think it's even on the plate amongst some text! They sell the "British Isles Political Map" on their website which also has a main heading of "Britain and Ireland" and mentions "British Isles" in some text. This certainly represents a change of tack (ie using the political terms instead of the geogrphic ones - and there are always political and geographic maps), but they haven't "dropped" the term. So I'm changing the section heading again - Wikipedia cannot mislead people like this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. National Geographic has clearly, and explicitly, dropped the name "British Isles" from its atlas. Oddly enough they have not dropped the term on the atlas they produced 10 years ago, if that's what your argument is. In fact, not only have they dropped "British Isles" from their atlas from 2008 on but they have, as a matter of policy, said it is being replaced with the title "Britain and Ireland". A common sense description of these islands that will undoubtedly be reflected in the final name for this wikipedia article when when common sense finally overthrows the irredentism of certain British posters. Ah common sense, that most unfortunately uncommon characteristic. 78.16.126.36 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just an anecdotal story (from the mouth of someone who saw its use as "absurd error"! He might disagree with its definition, but it was hardly an error by National Geographic!)

Oh, is it now? Somebody needs reading classes. See above. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No - National Geographic still use it. Try reading around a bit yourself. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The Irish gov merely confirmed that it's not a "legal" term - it never was!

Wrong. It said it is consciously not used by the democratically-elected government of Ireland as a matter of policy because it is objectionable. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Where? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Recent reference shows that in 1947 the then Irish govt stated that the term "British Isles" was a misnomer and not to be used. Recently reiterated in the whole kerfuffle about Folens.Wotapalaver (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are you anyway? --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to know who you are. What you clearly and unmistakably are is another British person with jingoistic and irredentist notions concerning Ireland and the Irish people. No surprises, then. You personify a tradition of some note in Ireland. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

213.202.151.22, please keep your personal opinons in check. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that story quite scary - that a respected organisation can cave in to political pressure like that. Oh well, last time I buy National Geographic then. Who knows what other facts they have compromised for the sake of expediency? I wonder what they'll call the British Isles after Scotland becomes independent? "British, Irish, and Scottish Isles" or something? And why aren't the Manx complaining about being left out? TharkunColl (talk) 16:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Read it again - its actually a nothing story. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

and like your use of the British Isles is not rabidly political at all. Sheer coincidence, all that British rule in Ireland since the 17th century and the use of this term since the 17th century. 213.202.151.22 (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Whatever about a magazine deciding to be tautological - please leave the synthesis and OR out. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Luv these British vs Irish disputes. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So now we have reference back to 1947 with the Irish Govt objection, a recent note from the National Geographic saying Be aware that the Irish may object to the name British Isles, even in a strictly geographic sense. The plate in the National Geographic Atlas of the World once titled "British Isles" now reads "Britain and Ireland. and although NG does obviously still sell maps with "British Isles" on them they're apparently changing that (although British-Irish Isles is an awkward name). A prize to anyone who finds the date when Michelin and Reader's Digest changed, because they have. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New comments on how the 3RR case should be resolved

As Matt has promised to avoid warring and as I tend to agree with him re IPs (though I like this particular one!) can we not just close the book on this 3RR case? I strongly believe that reverting IPs should not count as edit-warring anywhere. But that's just my POV. Sarah777 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slap this article with a 1RR restriction for the rest of the month. That'll keep everybodies 'revert' fingers on hold. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha

I have removed "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha", as it translates to British Islands, and inaccurate in the encyclopedia. User:Bastun insists on reverting me, but obviously doesn't know his Gaelic. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I gonna have to request 'Full Protection' for this article, to stop the edit warring? GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I am not edit warring. Matt Lewis and Bastun are edit warring. And if you request protection, please protect my edit. Thanks! 78.19.55.51 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made 1 edit merely to replace the preceding version of the introduction (without the "Many") - looks like you did two things in one edit.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That statement is cited to a reliable source. The burden of evidence lies on the person who challenges this to prove it is wrong. If you )78.19.55.51) cannot prove that the translation is inaccurate, you have no justification for tagging it. And even if that statement does translate to what you say it does, it doesn't make any difference because Gaelic does not have seperate words for "islands" and "isles." That language uses "hOileáin" for both words. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 17:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bursting your bubble, Gaelic does have separate words for Island and Isle. It's a POV edit, and that's a fact. Suddenly everyone around here is a fluent Gaelic speaker. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Translation is always idiomatic in any case. TharkunColl (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

All of you are edit warring. I suggest ya'll cool off. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When I was studying Gaelic "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" meant the Islands belonging to Britain, and "Na hOileáin Eireanna" meant islands belonging to Ireland. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Which means that the first one exactly translates the Greek and Latin names for the islands. Remember that the term "belonging to" doesn't imply political control, but rather geographical association. TharkunColl (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your endeavoring to split hairs here. The Gaelic does mean the political sense here in this case. The Gaelic is very complicated, with many more cases. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW - http://www.englishirishdictionary.com/dictionary returns "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" --Bardcom (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although in fairness, The national terminology database for Irish, developed by Fiontar, DCU, with funding from Foras na Gaeilge http://www.focal.ie/Search.aspx?term=british+isles returns the term as "Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór" which translates as "Ireland and Great Britain" :-) --Bardcom (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And this translates the term according to whether you want a geographical, polictical, or historical translations http://www.acmhainn.ie/focail.htm

Breataine/ na hÉireann (Geog.) (lit. British/Irish)
Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór (Pol.) (lit. Ireland and Great Britain)
Poblacht na hÉireann agus an Ríocht Aontaithe (Hist.) (lit. Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom)

Seems to me that the term doesn't really directly translate into Irish very well... --Bardcom (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" looks like a neologism. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe less than 15 years old. See here: https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9707&L=GAEILGE-A&P=4369 --Bardcom (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And wouldn't have general acceptance, or approval? Like some other input here, unfortunately. 78.19.55.51 (talk) 18:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

78.19.55.51 - you are enforcing two different issues in your one edit - stop this. If you must war, at least do it one issue at a time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have some references to indicate that real Irish Gaelic speakers ever use those other terms that translate as "Islands in Western Europe", "Islands belonging to the Atlantic", or whatever? Or are these just neologisms? TharkunColl (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

One of them is in a 1927 dictionary. Hardly counts as a neologism anymore. A bit late for "neo". As for getting sources describing balance of usage between three terms that probably aren't in very regular use at all, Irish itself isn´t very used any more, so that might be tricky. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In any case, dictionaries use all three (different) phrases. Maybe there are more different phrases, but there's no reference yet. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, it's just POV POV POV -- just like the article itself. British Isles is unacceptable by many people throughout the world, and term means the "islands belonging to the British", and Ireland isn't British. A very deep insult to many Irish people after enduring the genocide by the British, including the famine. It's like calling Israel German, how vulgar? I don't discount that the term exists, but the article, which should be a 12 liner, is just an exercise in "British Nationalism". Pathetic stuff. 78.19.204.211 (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an exercise in pushing a certain 'anti-usage' POV which even has its own fork article! Why are people into maintaining some standards (notability and weight etc) "pathetic"?--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's reference to objection around the world, then let's have it. Meantime, the term exists, many (not all) Irish people find it objectionable and there seem to be various translations for the term in Irish. No POV there. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

USA government don't use it, British government don't use it , Irish government don't use it, etc etc. I have supplied these references some months ago. 78.19.204.211 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know where those references are today. Put them in the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" never was a 'legal' term in that sense! It's like saying Scotland isn;t a country because the UN lists the United Kingdom! It's just different criteria. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my Irish is rusty. Anon IP, care to tell us what the Irish for "Isles" is, if it isn't "Oileain"? The term "British Isles" does not mean "islands belonging to Britain" - the term meaning "islands belonging to Britain" is British Islands. And yes, please avoid enforcing two or more changes in the one edit with a misleading edit summary. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 08:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bastun, very rusty indeed, therefore please recuse yourself from this section, and maybe create some new articles from your vast knowledge. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... no. Please supply a reference showing that "oileain" != "isles". Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Isles in English means "islands"; in Irish they didn't bother have two different names for the exact same thing. So the Irish version means both. Sarah777 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Irish does have more than one word for an island. An oileán is a larger island than an inis. Both can be seen through modern-day placenames. Inis is a small island, like Inis Ní (Co. Galway), or Inis Mhóchaoí (Co. Down). Olieán is bigger, for example Oileán Thoraigh (Co. Donegal) or Oileán Mhic Aodha (Co.Antrim). The term "the island of Ireland" is "oileán na hÉireann" whilst "the British Isles" is (yes, you've guessed it!) "na hOileáin Bhriotanacha". Despite the fact that "inis" has similar connotations to that of "isle", it would be inappropriate in this case (linguistically from a Gaelic perspective at least). "Na hInse Bhritanacha" is thus incorrect. I have already provided citations above for uses of the term "Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha" - this issue has already been discussed (see Talk:British_Isles#Irish_language_.22Translation.22). "The islands belonging to Britain" would be "oileáin de chuid na Breataine" or "oileáin faoi chumhacht na Breataine". D.de.loinsigh (talk) 16:51, 04 May 2008 (UTC)

^ Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.
^ Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005.
^ Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.
^ Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005.
^ Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.
^ Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

[1] Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

[2] Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005.

[3] Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

[4] Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September 2005.

[5] Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

[6] Pocock, J.G.A. (2005). The Discovery of Islands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]