Talk:British Isles/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Pretanic Islands and Britanniae

The earliest known names for the islands come from copies of ancient Greek writings.

These texts may have been used as a source by later writers but it is a simple fact that there are no originals and there are no copies.

Ancient Greek refers to a period until 146 BC. This is different to people who wrote in greek such as Ptolemy, a Roman citizen, born and bred in Roman Egypt. Indeed all the greek terms in the article, Ρρεττανοι, Πρετανικαι νησοι etc originate from the Roman Empire.

When the protection is lifted I propose the above sentence is reworded.

The earliest known names for the islands come from Roman writings Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman writings in Greek. So, when you say 146 BC as the end point for "Ancient Greek", do you mean January 1st or December 31st? Or indeed, a date inbetween? We need to know this so as to be able to correct the tens of thousands of articles that presumably make this idiotic and totally unforgivable blunder. ðarkuncoll 23:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the years used to start in March? Anyway, I was foolish enough to use wikipedia Ancient Greece as my source. Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And according to the article the Greeks/Romans included Iceland and/or western Norway, possibly also the Friesian Islands in their descriptions so the ancient term doesn't map onto the modern term exactly. Then, after the Romans, there was a gap of about 1500 years before the term was resurrected during the period of the Tudor conquest of Ireland. As Nicholas Canny puts it in his book, the term is "politically loaded". 89.129.143.60 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The Romans included Thule in the BI, but there's no evidence this meant Iceland at the time - and the inclusion of this factoid in the article is another example of how it has been derailed to suit that anti-BI brigade. It could have meant the Shetlands. It later times its meaning changed, but this was much, much later. The term BI in Latin was resurrected in the early 16th century, long before the Tudor reconquest of Ireland, and by Europeans with no pro-English motivations. ðarkuncoll 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

(point of order) - Lucian Sunday, propose away. The article can still be edited while it's protected. Make a proposal here on the talk page, and if there's consensus I (or another admin) will make the change. Waggers (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"The Romans included Thule in the BI, but there's no evidence this meant Iceland at the time ..." Six days sailing north of Britain and close to the Arctic circle, according to Strabbo. You're right, they could have meant Norway. "... inclusion of this factoid ..." Don't want the history of the term discussed - or the history discussed only on your terms?

Back onto topic, this seems like a minor, matter-of-fact change - even if some dislike accuracy being added to the article. (different IP user to the one above) --78.152.255.20 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't the earliest names come from copies of Ancient Greek writings? Pytheas etc.? Correct me if I'm wrong. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Pytheas's work no longer exists. From Pytheas#Notes Strabo, like Diodorus Siculus, quotes Pytheas through Poseidonius.

Lucian Sunday (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<deident>While I've no objection to the change, I should point out that ancient Greek is different to Ancient Greeks (As highlighted by the original poster having to pipe his link for Ancient Greek to Ancient Greece). --Narson ~ Talk • 10:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I should explain that I piped the link Ancient Greek (Ancient Greece) as the current version does this. According to WP Ancient Greek refers to a period until 301 BC. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

@Lucian, I realise Pytheas' work no longer exists, but what do we then call the works derived therefrom? Copies may not be the best word. What is? Derivative works? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This article section is an example of how The wiki article could be phrased (as well as providing some insight on Wonky Scotland!. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I knew about the reason for wonky Scotland, but where does that article give an example of suitable phrasing? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Its nice to know that someone knows the reason. I would suggest

The only coherent, though often deficient source for knowlege of the (British) Islands that has come down to us from the most flourishing period of the Empire, is the map of Ptolemy, the result of a combination of the lines of roads and of the the coasting expeditions during the first century of Roman occupation. One great fault, however, has crept into the map by his having made use of a totally different source, namely the astronomical fixations of lattitude executed by Pytheas

Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shelta spoken in America

The article states that there are 86,000 Shelta speakers worldwide, mainly in America. The article does not give any more details nor does he cite that assertion. I did not realise there were so many Irish Travellers who had immigrated to America.--jeanne (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If there's no reference then either have a look for one yourself, or tag the content with "citation needed" then come back in a week or two and delete it if no-one has given a reference to support the content. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found a reference. It is www.christusrex.com/www1/pater/JPN-Shelta.html When the page is no longer under protection, I shall add it.--jeanne (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue is the usual "ready-made" citation for these kind of things. 86,000 is cited in their entry for Shelta. --89.19.91.84 (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue says 86k speakers with 6k in Ireland and the rest in the UK and USA. It doesn't say that they're "mainly" in the USA. The majority may be in the UK, no? The other site doesn't open for me. I get a page not found error. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe so many Irish Travellers are in America. It's more likely they are in the UK.--jeanne (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, it doesn't matter what you find hard to believe. According to http://www.language-museum.com/s/shelta.php there are 50k Shelta speakers in the USA, 30k in the UK, 6k in Ireland. Same statistic is shown on the www.christusrex.com site. I can't speak to the reliability of either of those sites. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe because the article on the Irish Travellers fails to mention the presence of so many in America. This article also fails to do so. Therefore, one must question the reliability of the sites you have listed. Note I said question not deny.--jeanne (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't vouch for the reliability of the sites I mentioned. I don't know anything about them. My only point was that your beliefs are unimportant compared to references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Point taken.--jeanne (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Last Night of the Proms

In a fine example showing just how imprecise the term "British Isles" can be, the Last Night of the Proms broadcast from London, Glasgow, Cardiff and Belfast on BBC1 on 13 September 2008 included songs sung by Bryn Terfel. Wearing a specially made suit displaying the flags of the United Kingdom, Wales, Scotland, England and the republic of Ireland, it was introduced as a Folk-Song Medley out of ditties from all four corners of the British Isles: The Turtle Dove sings for England, we’re on the Scottish waters of Loch Lomond before hearing the Welsh Cariad cyntaf and joining sweet Molly Malone from Ireland. [1]. The last of these was referred to in the program as coming from Dublin. Bazza (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, use or don't use BI wherever yas want on Wikipedia. But, this article's name remains as is. GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't post the part of the intro. that most clearly points to the 'problem' with the term "BI": The medley is introduced as "genuinely British traditional." So that, here, the 'four corners of the British Isles,' = British. Nuclare (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw the proms too - it was fully in line with the standard definition of "GB and the island of Ireland", but they used "Ireland" in its geographical sense, and used GB as three other "coners"! It is correct in a sense, but it's a mix of the geographical and the 'cultural' (or 'political'). It basically should be "five corners of the British Isles" if they do it without mixing. But the BBC has no singular approach with this, as we often see.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mustn't forget the IoM and les isles de la Manche. The British Isles must have at least six corners thus proving that it cannot, in fact, exist. Sarah777 (talk) 09:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe they'll find them in CERN right next to Higgs boson! Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The title remains, do as ya'll wish with the content. GoodDay (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you GoodDay.--jeanne (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, all I'll say is it was also asserted with the same confidence that the Irish people could not survive on their own unless they were ruled by the British. Actually, that's not all I will say. This name is going nowhere because it represents a uniquely British nationalist perspective of the subservient place of the Irish people in this world. Irish people, as made clear in the removal of British rule from most of Ireland, reject this British nationalist view of Ireland as a member of their "British Isles". Those people wishing to impose this name on us are wilfully resisting that Irish reality. They fail, intentionally it must be added, to grasp Irishness, in particular the principal experience that has shaped modern Irishness: British colonial rule. We have tasted freedom. We are not going back. It's over. Let me, therefore, assert: this name, like countless others in world history, will be changed because its unique purpose is to offend a large amount of people. The name is consequently experiencing a steep decline across academia, media and political circles, as detailed extensively in these archives. Most people do not wish to offend and simply want to get through life with as little hassle as possible. For that reason, people like this assume power in democratic, market-driven societies: they work with people, not go out of their way to offend them and lose business/listeners/readers. That is the real reason this article title will be changed. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Or alternatively, people will go out of their way to be offended as an excuse to soapbox. Please, for political discourse we have news channels and plenty of websites. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The title remains, do as yas wish with the content. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" and "offensive"

So there seems to be support with references for "offensive" and no support with references for "may". Can the page now be unprotected and have "may" removed? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we please have both "may" and "offensive" removed. And simply keep it "where many people find the term objectionable". Repeating "offensive" and "objectionable" is a tautology in this context. "Objectionable" is what we mean, rather than offensive. --78.152.239.22 (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever makes it easier. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again: I am distinctly and unequivocally offended to be classed as British, as the term "British Isles" does when it claims Ireland. That's not my history, and they are not my people. Stop trying to impose the myths and nation-making projects of British nationalists upon Ireland, upon Irish people, and upon our own distinct experience of British occupation. We suffered precisely for our difference, the British dominated us based upon embracing that difference. Now, however, we are all, it seems, happy Brits. It's so contrived and ahistorical that it's pathetic. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, no more soapboxing, please. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But the references not only say objectionable, but mostly say offensive. "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'", "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities....", "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists".

And please, don't anybody start with calling "nationalists" a minority when the main party in government in ROI describes itself as "Republican". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the Republic of Ireland is a "republic", it's not likely that the main party in government would refer to itself as "monarchist"! The term "Nationalist" does not necessarily mean "Republican". Look up both words in the dictionary.--jeanne (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Arn't those sources saying we should use many? Personally I'd stick with neither may or offensive and just go with objectionable. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

@jeanne. The meanings in an Irish context are clear. In Ireland republicans are all nationalists even if not all nationalists are republicans. Also a recent leader of Fine Gael, the main opposition party, made a speech to clarify that they were nationalists too - in case anyone thought otherwise. And I have a dictionary, thanks.

@ Narson. As for "many", yes, the sources typically use "many" or "often". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I do realise that in Ireland all republicans are nationalists. The point I had made, you have just stated, namely not all nationalists are republican. I was only joking about the dictionary. It's patently obvious that you own a dictionary- probably more than one, I daresay. --jeanne (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so if the two biggest political parties claim they are nationalist in one way or another (i.e. republican or not) then there's no way to argue that "nationalist" is some odd minority in Ireland. This leaves the references saying "many" and "offensive" unambiguous and unarguable. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

But, you are referring to politicians, not the man in the street. Honestly, do you really think the average Dubliner gives two s..tes what geographical term is used?--jeanne (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We are probably getting into a folly by trying to talk aout the people using political parties. The turnout at the last election was 67% and the Fianna Fail got less than half of that. Even if you add in the Fine Gael, you are still only at 68.9, which still gets less than 50% of the population. If a source says nationalists, we don't synthesise that to mean everyone. Perhaps, if the sources say Nationalists find it offensive, we should say that Nationalists find it offensive? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now that sounds like a good solution. Nobody can argue the point that Nationalists do find it offensive. The problem was in the word "Irish", which implied that the majority of Irish people-even those non-political- found it offensive.--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No-one is synthesizing "nationalists" to mean everyone. The term is "many". I'm simply saying that the previous argument that "nationalists" meant almost no-one is unsupportable whereas an argument that "nationalists" means lots of people is easily supported. I've never argued majorities because there are no references, but even jeanne's "less than 50%" is still many. As for saying that "only" nationalists find it offensive, that's misleading and unsupported. The term is still described in reference as "often" offensive and offensive to "many" Irish, let alone the places where it's described as objectionable. Simply removing "may" from the current introduction gives a simple clean and supported text. All the maneuverings are apparently driven by some personal agenda. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, one could provide citation that "The great majority of Irish people are nationalists to a greater or lesser degree...", from a survey in 2006 (http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2006/04/02/story13121.asp). That might support "many", and then we don't need to over-politicize things. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. This is more of the same old sh!t from the same auld suspects. The Irish are 'nationalists'- but the British? the English? No, they are of course far above such things. Duh. We've seen it all before. My status as an Irishman objects to being told I am not Irish. When my forefathers throughout the centuries resisted English and British rule, they were not 'nationalists'(a term only traceable in its modern form to 18th century Europe): they were Irishmen sharing a common culture and a common interest. Would that some day we could be Irish again and not simply 'nationalist' when we refuse to be 'British'. It must be the water over there. There's something wrong with you. Many Irish people, very very many Irish people object to, and are offended by, this absolutely fu@king ridiculous British imperialist term used by eurosceptic troglodytes from the dark ages. You're annoying me now.86.42.119.12 (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Who's annoying you? Whether or not the Irish are nationalists has no bearing or relevance to whether or not the English are. It's apparent from the citations I've provided that most Irish people are nationalists and it's apparent from citations that many people have provided that many people object to, or find offensive, the term "British Isles" when applied to Ireland. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Mo dhuine above is annoying me with her raiméis that 'many' might imply 'most'- "The problem was in the word "Irish", which implied that the majority of Irish people-even those non-political- found it offensive". Jesus, Mary and Joseph- I thought my grasp of the cursed foreign spleen was lacking. The vast majority of the population of this island is clearly 'nationalist'; if they were not one would see calls for a return to British rule. There are no such calls. The ceolán above is attempting to soften reality by replacing the word Irish with the word 'nationalist' because she refuses to accept that the vast majority of the population of this island has rejected the British nationalist pipedream of a nation covering their beloved "British Isles". Are the English and British 'nationalists' because they do not want to be ruled by a foreign country? Nope, 'nationalism' is for the lower, irrational sort. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

<reduce indent> "Most" may very well be true but there is reference for "many". You can read "many" however you want to. As for "nationalists", the original argument was that "nationalists" were only a few of the population. I'm afraid it was me who pulled up a reference to show that it's the vast majority, so please calm down. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you can remove any mention of the Republic of Ireland from this article (maybe even the entire island of Ireland). But the name of this article stays, as it's at least a historical name. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

So why is "many nationalists find it obectionable" never allowed? Or anything but "many find it objectionable and offensive" It is why we have to defend the tempering word "may".

I wouldn't even accept "many nationalists" based on the evidence we have. We simply must use other words. ON WIKIPIPEDIA, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE WHAT WE APPROPRIATE INTO THE TEXT, OTHERWISE WE MUST AT VERY LEAST MAKE IT CLEAR IT IS THE OPINION FROM THE SOURCE! We only have a few refs and they are not enough per WP:REDFLAG in WP:verifiability to prove anything!!! And the WP:weight we give the dissent in the intro (and bold refs etc) is totally unjustified with the language we use. We show nothing of how it is used every day.

What's the point of going on about one word anyway, when we have been told to address the other problems in the intro too? The Irish politicians line needs addressing too (a 1947 document and a rather unclear spokesman are the sources we have for that) . See this proposal from above for ideas. It needs some history in it too. Any ideas? --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Typical from MattLewis. He wouldn't even accept "many nationalists" although there are reputable sources and he has not a single countervailing source. There is no point discussing with someone who refuses to respect basic policy of verifiability. Formal Process starts as soon as I can find how to do it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Y'all are clogging my watchlist: {{editprotected}} Please remove the word 'may' from the second sentence of the article. Filtering the noise from this section and the "May" section above, it looks like there's pretty good consensus that it is a poor compromise.—eric 17:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this a joke? There is no consensus of the kind! "Filtering the noise"? Does that mean completely ignoring one point of view? You need to read more than the the two sections above - which are dominated by a notiorious banned user's IP (not that anyone cares about that - a disgraceful fact, I'm afraid).

What do you have without the word "may"? The word "many" on its own!!

I, as others do, object to the removal of the compromising word "may", unless the wildly OTT line "many find it offensive" text is re-written in a fairer way. If you can be bothered to read the ongoing debate over the last months - that is what the score is. Don't let the admin-favourite User:Gold heart run the show whatever you do. He's been given the keys to Wikipedia, but he can't make a consensus on his own. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. Please use {{editprotected}} only after consensus is achieved.  Sandstein  18:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, please desist from this relentless paranoia. You are sinking further into the abyss every time you accuse editors here of being somebody else. It's a sad spectacle, one which is very tiresome, and probably against a number of wikipedia rules. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

'May' is a weasel word; the evidence is for 'many' people being offended. It is the above mentioned editor who is refusing to accept this. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ditto from here (and I'm not GoldHeart). "May" is an unsupported weasel word. References abundantly show that "many" find the term "offensive". They've been listed, highlighted, backed up, again and again and again and the only response is unsupported assertations of OTT, POV, etc. The references are there, they're solid, they're unambiguous. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"abundantly" in bold is bluster and bullsh*t. Unfortunately people read it and believe it, whether it is from an IP account or not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Q) Are there many sources for the word "many"?
• A) No - they dry up after a hard-found few.

• Q) Do we have a right to expect many sources for contentious line written as authoritatively as this (where the very words are appropriated into the text)?
• A) Yes, of course we do: WP:REDFLAG in WP:verifiability, and WP:weight (regarding the intro), demand it.

• Q) Do possibly all the people who insist on "many" (especially) and "offensive" (in particular) often unashamedly express a hang up with 'the British'?
• A) As far as I can see, without doubt.

• Q) Do people ignore this article because they are sick to death of it?
• A) Yes - people have said so.

We have been told to deal with all the problems with the introduction if we the article unlocked.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Are there sources? Yes, there are several unchallenged sources of this highest order. As for the idea that this is a "contentious" idea, there isn't a single reference to suggest that it's contentious. As for whether the people who support "many" and "offensive" have a hang up with the British, it doesn't matter, the references stand anyway. Are people sick of unsupported assertions from people whose only argument is IDONTLIKEIT, yes. I'm gonna call for a formal process again. This business of people with no evidence asserting things again and again and again is just too much. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you sign in first? Using "many" in the way you insist upon is contentious is the extreme! I don't like it because it flies in the face of all of Wikipedia's policy, guidelines and principles. To prevent improvement from happening to this article, you keep demanding the opposite of improvement - more extremity through the removal of "may". It is this clear stonewalling of progress that has got to stop!

Nobody challenges Kearney's context when he chooses to use the word "many" - be we can't appropriate his context! He goes to use the term "British Isles" himself for present-day Ireland. We nave NO real world examples (why not?), and another source specifies "nationalists" (again in the writer's context). Pollock was a polemicist promoting "the Atlantic Isles" - that has to be taken into account (if you take Wikipedia seriously that it). What is left? It makes no difference that the few we have are academic presses. Academic presses never stop rolling, and you are unadvanced in academia if you haven't published: it's part of the career.

When I fist looked at this I honestly expected to find many sources backing up all the anger I saw - but they simply do not exist in anything like the intensity shown by a small goup of people on Wikikpedia. They also surprised me in their small number, and then I started to notice then how much the term is actually used. So we show all the problems and criticisms of the term in another cleverer guideline-based way (like I've suggested recently above, and in various forms previously - always to screams of "pathetic British POV"!). There should not be a problem here, but this article is simply being used as an attack dog, mostly by socks and IP's.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you cite a single source that using "many" is extreme? Ah, yes, you say it yourself...there are no sources to cite, it's just that YOU DON'T LIKE IT. Nobody is challenging these authors because what they are saying is common knowledge. As for socks (I'm not) and IPs, it's Wikipedia policy that IPs have as many rights as usernames. After all, User:Matt Lewis could actually be Angela Merkel. Wikipedia doesn't have to care who you are, just that you can provide verifiable sources. I do, Matt Lewis doesn't. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to provide a diametrically opposite 'counter-quote' for something that is already red-flagged by verifiability and doesn't remotely pass due weight!

How was your holiday is Spain by the way? What gets me on top of everything else is that you so easily lie. 86.42 above is Gold heart (not Wikipeire, or the same person as him, as I first thought) and you are Wotapolaver. It's fully provable but I've had my fill with all that lately (so you are lucky aren't you? But I wouldn't push it..). In less than two weeks you can do what you want here. I'll have a proposal for this article's introduction before then that will be so fairly balanced and inclusive of article content, that it will truly show the inner valuelessness of Wikipedia is if it ends up denigrated by IP's and un-voted-for by everyone else. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask this again, IP.79 & IP.86 why are you both so afraid to sign-in? Even I'm beginning to become suspicious. This refusal to sign-in, is getting annoying. GoodDay (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It is none of your business whether I sign in. You still assert that something has been red-flagged. Please provide any reference to support this. I might as well red-flag that gravity exists but I wouldn't find too many reputable sources to back me up. You're in a similar situation. You have your opinion but no sources. Your opinion is worthless. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, until you both sign-in (as you've no excuse not to), I personally shall no longer respond to both of you. GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do we have a right to expect many sources for contentious line written as authoritatively as this (where the very words are appropriated into the text)?" Matt, name a number that will satisify you and I will produce that number of references. What are your criteria? Do they need the words "many" and "objectionable" in them or would a different phrasing with the same meanign satisify you (e.g. some sources will say that "many in Ireland find the term objectionable" another may say that "Irish people find the term objectionable" would both of these satisify you? If you are unwilling to propose some criteria that would satisify you, it can only be concluded that you are here to troll and/or push your narrow and unsubstantiated view on the rest of the world.

Before I undertake this endeavour, I would however suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP:VERIFY as I don't think that you yet quite understand it.

To "GoodDay" - when you stop hiding behind a made-up name, then - and only then - are you allowed to lecture anyone on anonymity. Read WP:AGF and understand that on in site we ALL contribute anonymously. (A different contributor to the above.) --62.24.204.7 (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

To IP 62; not good enough. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazy 62 (a cybercafe IP if ever I saw one) - nobody is saying the term is not without its problems! Have an actual read of this - my proposal from above. What on earth is wrong with an approach like that? (apart from not covering any historical info - but the current intro lacks that anyway). You pontificate: "If you are unwilling to propose some criteria that would satisify you, it can only be concluded that you are here to troll" - why not read the prior debate before spouting off like that? I positively encourage you to go looking for new sources (as many as you can) - but you should know that the ones presented now took a good while to compile. You might think the internet is brimming with signs of active objection or offense, but it very much is not. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish people, as a rule, avoid giving names to English people. I, for example, walked back from Super Valu this morning and I had to pass Gallow's Hill, so called because somebody gave names in 1798 and, well, the rest is history. This morning, like every other morning, it was not lost on me. I felt the terror of that time as I looked up. It's fine for you lads in mother England. We live here. With your ideas about what we should be, you don't get the significance of what, and where, we actually are. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, irrellevent soapboxing. --Narson ~ Talk • 22:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, you do not make the same points to your friends above who have several issues with IPs, despite the fact that IPs have an equal right to be here according to wikipedia policy. That is not soapboxing? Or is it just that it appeals to your preferences? And we won't say anything about the breaches of wikipedia policy by those posters when they allege dishonesty, impersonation and other acts. Have you even bothered to listen to that Matt Lewis chap with his paranoid ramblings that breach wikipedia policy here and elsewhere? No, that's grand by you, isn't it. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If Matt started moaning on about IRA bombings or some clap trap to get sympathy for his POV, I'd tell him to quit soapboxing too. We do not need Anglo-Irish history rehashed on this page, go find a web forum if you want that, just stick to the article here. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Bold

I have been following the discussion of the last few weeks and contributing on occasion, mainly to try and stimulate discussion towards middle ground. One thing is clear, and that is that there is no solutions that are going to make everyone happy. But my interpretation - as someone with little personal interest - of the a fair compromise, with regards to the lead, is:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people [5] find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage.[6]

I'm going to be bold and make this change and hope that, while its unlikely to be anyone's preferred solution, it does reflect the spirit of most of the sources. It also more-or-less treads the middle ground between the disparate opinions expressed above. There is a pretty good chance someone will revert this to their preferred version, and I certainly will not be warring over it. However, I would hope that enough of the contributors would sense that this is the best compromise, and marginalize those who continue to push for one extreme or the other. If we can settle on this as an acceptable compromise in the meantime, then that would give a basis for discussing an entire rewrite, like that proposed by Matt above. Rockpocket 23:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Rockpocket. I had some concerns that many might sound like majority or some other term, but reading it in that sentence, it seems to be just right. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

In a way it actually sounds starker and slightly harsher to me (the ambiguity of many!!), but I think its a step in the right direction: any succeeding change is a huge step in fact, so I'll certainly back it up by putting it back if it's reverted. Effectively we are all on 1RR (2 at a push - against an IP perhaps?), so others who want movement will need to offer support. I know it's currently frowned-on to say that so openly, but I think that sometimes frustrated editors have approached 3RR simply because others have backed off from touching it at all. Whatever we do in talk to create consensus, the editing table is the only way to ultimately prove it. When situations are so fought over like this one, lose the courage to do it and you may as well have no consensus. The weasel word "may" had to go somehow, and least we've lost the double-whammy word "offensive"! --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket's proposal sounds like the best solution. I personally support the wording.--jeanne (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing both "may" and "offensive" is probably a reasonable compromise and keeps it to a sentence, which is the most a geography article should have. You might get some opposition to jumping in after protection was removed without proposing it here, but I for one don't object. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing "offensive" is a sop to the IDONTLIKEIT brigade so I object. Do I have to list all the sources that use "offensive" again? IIRC it's the most common characterization in the references. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Actually, let's see those remarks in the references again. But the references not only say objectionable, but mostly say offensive. "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'", "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities....", "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)", "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists". Combined with reference that shows that the "great majority" of people in Ireland are nationalists, we have some huge evasion going on if we remove the word offensive. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone is interested in seeing a non-reputable source's opinion, have a look at http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/1998/07/01/opinion.htm. This is a letter in an Irish paper from 1998, pretty much pre-Wikipedia (IINM) and describes the term as "regarded by seemingly most Irish people as offensive" and as "almost taboo among those of Irish nationality". Now this letter writer was writing in favour of the term, so perhaps those who like the term would finally manage to realize that it's not a pro or con argument here, it's a question of recognizing reality as it is, not how you think it should be. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the most offensive things I've personally experienced is the amount of times you have made me go through your same clutch of references over and over, over most of this year. 50 times, counting utterly exhausted breaks? I expect you read about 5 of them, no-matter how much point-by-point analysis I had written. Your 'QED' conclusion from these refs is just nonsense. You have actually found a new reference now - well done. But "seemingly most" from a letter writer isn't good enough. And who knows what he's been reading, eh? Using the term "seemingly" as he does, '10 to 1' he's been reading the politicised rantings of and Gold heart and yourself, over this and the 'naming dispute' article (which for a while was outrageously biased - so much so that you simply couldn't reverse my amendments to it, even though you slagged them of repeatedly). I notice one other available ref which you never use - the one that actually refers to Wikipedia. By the way, did you fail to get your dog through quarantine? You've been there a while.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, multiple references that some people refuse to actually read. Meantime, here's another. How about this...."Of course, many Irish dislike the 'British' in British Isles.......... In response to these difficulties 'Britain and Ireland' is becoming a preferred usage...". Now, it's only from an academic publisher of the highest order (Routledge). Several people have previously suggested that "British Isles" was in decreasing use. Now there's a reference to support that. Intro needs a re-write. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

What I would suggest is putting any mention of the term being offensive into a footnote, and removing it from the lead altogether. After all, it's only a vanishingly small percentage of the population of the British Isles who find it so. ðarkuncoll 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

'Offensive' does indeed seem to be well referenced, and the decline of its use and its replacement by 'Britain and Ireland' is especially well referenced (e.g. maps by international publishers mentioned earlier). This article should accurately and honestly reflect these changes, regardless of the opinions of a small minority editing this article.(different user to above) 78.16.179.151 (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree. If anything the gross offensiveness of referring to Ireland as if it were still part of a genocidal Empire should be much more strongly highlighted. Sarah777 (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it about time to ban the above editor (again) from Wikipedia? This constant reference to the British Empire and other things British in the most objectionable terms imaginable is really quite offensive to me and I guess many other level-headed people. This editor continues to drag Wikipedia into the swamp. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some editors may find a statement that the British Empire genocidal offensive, but it is a view which is held and for which there is some supporting evidence. I think its a bit extreme, but it is a valid view. On the other hand saying that an editor is dragging Wikipedia into a swamp is personal abuse. At least the editor concerned declares herself rather than hiding behind an IP address making provocative comments. --Snowded TALK 21:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I edit using an IP is a total irrelevance. I stand by my comments. The editor is well known for provocative, distasteful views aimed at all things British. By the way, validity is not a feature of someone's view. A view is a view, not a fact. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

An IP address with no edit history, jumping in with provocative remarks on a controversial page? Don't make me laugh, of course its relevant. the words "provocative" and "distasteful" are views, and they constitute personal attacks on an individual editor. A view can be based on facts by the way. Most empires have genocide or near genocide in their history, trying to deny it is "distasteful" to the memory of those who have suffered, its a matter of honesty really. As I say I think you seeking to provoke a response, its called baiting and its not helpful --Snowded TALK 21:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You obviously don't like IPs and I guess you would prefer Wikipedia didn't allow them. However, they are allowed, so I suggest you hold back from discriminating against them. My "view" is that people should not be forced to have a total edit history to their name, and as you might say, my view is valid. As for the extreme and nasty views of some of the editors here, I'm coming to the conclusion that what's needed is for all reasonable editors on both sides of this argument to abandon it completely. Leave this, and similar pages alone, don't be provoked by the hateful, 19th century views of certain editors; let them stew in their own juice. Simply stop entering into a dialogue with them. 86.24.126.222 (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If I judged all Irish people on those I've met on Wikipedia, I could call them nasty aggressive, obsessive, racist, deceitful, childish idiots! Would that be fair? I can give you evidence if you like. My own rising distaste one of the reasons I can't wait to get out of this place. IMO, a small group of people have stained all the UK articles with your absolutely pulsating hatred of Britain with no perspective of time and place! Policy never means anything to you regarding these matters. Above, Sarah, you are "agreeing" with Wikipeire (as I'm sure you know - and the sockpuppetry of whom you have openly defended on Alison's talk) - but look what he did to Wales and Scotland! Do you support Gold heart too? Some of these characters are armchair criminals as far as I'm concerned. I'm working at IDTF for an Irish country I'm actually starting, for the first time in my life, to actually dislike. If it is really true that Ireland is full of people like you and Gold heart et al absolutely insist that it is, then it seems like an unpleasant place to me. Is it an unpleasant place? All the Irish I've seen in real life have been nothing like that, but I can't help feeling that maybe Ireland really is an unpleasant place? There is so little evidence of this active offense on the net, but maybe they just keep the hatred in the pubs, as has been suggested? Maybe the Irish keep coming over into Britain just to 'rip off' the old British enemy, rather than to live and settle and inter-breed? Are all the mixed children accidents? Unlike some, disliking another culture doesn't sit well with me at all. --Matt Lewis (talk)

Matt, given the direct reference to Irish editors this comment constitutes personal abuse. I deleted a similar extreme anti-British diatribe earlier and was tempted to do so this time. However I think it would be best if you simply reverted the comment (and this one). Phrases like "armchair criminals", "racist" etc could easily earn you a ban, something that I for one would not want to see happen. Sarah is talking about an entity (the British Empire) not the British per se as individuals. She may be going too far with the phrase genocide, although there are several episodes in the history of the Empire which get close. --Snowded TALK 15:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, as usual, smudges the line. I've toned it down. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, given news like this (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/ireland-is-ranked-friendliest-place-in-the-world-13474671.html), one might wonder why it is that MattLewis has such an untypical relationship with so many Irish people. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the more moderate objectionable seemed the best compromise between the disparate interpretation of the multitude of sources. I'm not asking anyone to change their view, I'm asking that people seek consensus by compromise. If "GB&I is becoming a preferred description", which may be the case, then you need to make clear by whom, because I'm pretty sure everyone, everywhere doesn't have that preference. Perhaps you mean among the Irish population? Perhaps you actually mean it is the recommended description [by someone], rather than the preferred desciption? Either way, as it stands the language is extremely weaselly, and needs some sort of attribution or specificity. Rockpocket 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The line about "preferred description" is an extremely close paraphrase of text from a Routledge published book, written mostly by University of Sussex academics, with one or two Cambridge academics. As for objectionable without offensive, it isn't a compromise, it's an evasion.79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue. Let me rephrase it: who are the University of Sussex academics, with one or two Cambridge academics referring to when they say "GB&I is becoming a preferred description"? If you don't know, perhaps you could reproduce it here in context. Rockpocket 00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, what is it with may around here? Critics may prefer? They may do whatever the hell they want, but documenting their free will isn't particularly insightful. We what to document what critics do, not what they may do. Rockpocket 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal then why do so many Irish people live "across the water"? Can anyone answer that?--jeanne (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@Jeanne. Sarah777 seems to find aspects of the British Empire's history to be genocidal. I don't know if she feels the British are currently genocidal and I don't know if anyone else shares her view. AFAIK there is no reference to support any statement that "the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal".

@Rocketpocket. The text of the reference is easy to find online. I believe that the authors are saying that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description at least in Britain and in Ireland, but they may mean everywhere. That would match my personal experience, but my personal experience is not relevant. As for "may", I'd be happy to lose it from that sentence too. It seemed an accurate word in context. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I can shed some light on my own statements; but first to clarify what I didn't say: "the majority of the Irish find the British genocidal".

The fact that the Empire was genocidal is more a matter of established fact than opinion. The "controversial" part? Because "British" is still the term used today to describe the people of the neighbouring island, is it appropriate to speak the truth about the British Empire in Wiki conversation? Many editors feel it isn't.

However, the importance of this issue - so long as British editors (and some others) insist on describing Ireland as part of the "British" Isles - means that the truth cannot be avoided in this debate. However offended some folk might be. (Especially as the Anglo-American educational system doesn't apparently teach that their respective states engaged in widespread genocide, some British editors exposed to the facts by us more knowledgeable folk can be shocked to hear the truth). Sarah777 (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(Am I the only one who loves the irony of using Anglo to refer to the UK in a conversation about whether British with respect to Ireland? I didn't realise Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland were English) Scroggie (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the truth never shocks me. Just the use of genocide applied Solely to the British Empire, while ignoring far more murderous regimes, annoys me very much. In fact, it Bores me, if you want my honest opinion. I used to argue quite frequently with my father about Irish/British issues. Another thing, the world does not revolve upon an Irish/British axis. And finally before I go to prepare for what passes as a Sunday lunch here in Italy, the Anglo/American educational system had/has it's faults, but I wouldn't advocate sending childen to the Christian Brothers. Would you?--jeanne (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the stupidity of others in just a character trait of the obsessed I'm afraid. We are just not sensitive and knowledgeable enough to see how evil the very name "Britain" is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

>>> Given that this article is about things British (including Ireland, so this story goes), it wouldn't make much sense for her to be speaking about, for instance, the Mongol Empire and other, allegedly, 'far more murderous regimes". Please keep focused. 78.16.214.238 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Acctually, the British Empire isn't regarded, academically, as genocidal. At least not universally. The usual first example is either the Belgian Congo (The personal fief of Leopold II) or the death marches in German Africa. British slaughter generally occured not through a desire to slaughter, but through a lack of caring as to the survival of a group (Not that this isn't as bad, just not genocide/biopolitical extirpation). There are some good lectures I can point you to if you want, Sarah. Now, that being said, there is no requirement for you to spout 'truths' as you see them (To expose people to them as you put it), nor for other editors too, nor for me to spout truths as I see them as I just did (Ah, sweet hypocracy). We are here to discuss the article. If editors here find the term offensive, it is irrelevent to the discussion, only what the sources say and what consensus is reached. Edited to add: Can we have references to geographical terms being replaced etc sourced to geography books, preferably? An introduction to post-war literature and society is a bit flimsy for such a statement. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Edited: 10:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne; personally I don't read stuff that bores me - maybe adopt that tactic? I'd also be interested to know what the relevance of the Rwandan Genocide has to this British/Irish issue. How would we work it in to the debate? No, I wouldn't send my kids to the brothers either probably but again what has that got to do with the BI naming dispute? "Another thing, the world does not revolve upon an Irish/British axis.". You don't say? Who said that it did? Sarah777 (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Narson; thanks but I don't need lectures. I state truths I don't "spout" them. If folk repeatedly imply that the term "British" applied to Ireland can't be deemed "offensive" then we must continue to explain, in our plodding patient way, to the chronically underinformed exactly why it is offensive. It is tough and unpopular work but someone gotta do it. Sarah777 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I've got a brilliant idea. I'll phone my eldest sons, who happen to live in Donaghmede, and tell them to take a wee survey around the pub tonight and ask their mates whether the "geographical term" British Isles offends them at all. Now, if the answer is nay, I'm sure that you'll just breezily put it down to their being "chronically uninformed". (Now where did I hear that phrase before- ah, yes from someone whose opinions I did not blindly agree with). Actually, it wasn't moi who brought up Rwanda. Seeing as we were discussing empires I was thinking along the lines of the Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire, etc.--jeanne (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting new take on objective research. Two sons of an avowed royalist tarot reader and amateur astrologer conduct a vox pop in a pub on a Sunday night, curious. --Snowded TALK 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm not sure anyone says no-one in Ireland finds the term British Isles offensive/objectionable. Hell, considering some people find offense at the Teletubbies, I'm suprised by nothing. The only debate is over the leve of objection and what proportion of the Irish population and how to word it. I am sure you will accept that not every Irishman considers the term offensive, so that is where the discourse lies. Going on about genocide and, as 86 was doing, how you are owed some great debt does not forward those decision. Rockpocket's edit seems pretty good, at least to me. I don't think the sources say that everyone draws offense, they do however show that a large portion find it offensive/objectionable and with an absolute majority clearly findin it objectionable. What about it upsets you? That it uses objectionable rather than offensive, objectionable being a less emotive term? Or do you disagree with many? --Narson ~ Talk • 12:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

@Narson. Pray tell, is there a source that shows that an absolute majority clearly find it objectionable? I'm unaware of that one. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded, pray tell me what Tarot cards and astrology have to do with my point on the British Isles? Namely that the average bloke in Darndale or Artane really doesn't give two s..tes about a geographical term, nor the fact that the mother of their mates is "an avowed monarchist (Royalist was a term used during the English Civil War). And I'm sure the average Dublin girl doesn't either. So why not settle for Rockpocket's proposal and let's move on to other issues.--jeanne (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Snow's point, and I agree with him on this, is that original research and anecdotal evidence has no place here. We arn't trying to decide the right of the matter, only what should be in an aricle. The only thing we may engage in is looking at the sources and working otu how best to represent them in text. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also agree. You really love name dropping as if you know what you're talking about. It just original research. There are a number of social issues in most of the areas you've mentioned so I don't know what point you're trying to make. What someone from Darndale thinks is completely irrlevant to an encyclopedia, its what the nation as a whole and what the references say that matters, not your opinions.Tempac (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Narson, you have it right. I was responding to the boleyn girl at the same level of relevance as her original argument to make a point. However I will apologise for calling a monarchist a royalist as it appears to be a matter of some importance to said editor. --Snowded TALK 13:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point the Boleyn girl is trying to make is this the average Irish person has more important issues to worry about than what to call the islands of Ireland and Great Britain which at this point in time and place are still referred to as the British Isles. I was not "name-dropping". Since when does a reference to two Dublin neighbourhoods constitute name-dropping!!!! My God, to enter any discussion here one needs to don a suit of armour. I have merely said I agree with Rockpocket's wording. Isn't it better to reach a compromise than waste time and energy fighting over a few words?--jeanne (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, Dev- you know what the average Irish person thinks? Please stop claiming to speak on behalf of the 'average Irish person'. I have yet to meet an 'average Irish person' who is a British royalist, as you claim to be. I am a Fine Gael-voting GAA-supporting PAYE worker and I don't know if that qualifies me as 'average'; I do know that the term "British Isles" has never been used by anybody in any discussion that I have had with them. I'd notice that, but then again despite the above I do not consider myself 'average'. At any rate, that is neither here nor there: there is, according to sources on these talk pages, an abundance of evidence testifying to this term being used less, and there are also sufficient references to support 'offensive' over 'objectionable'. That is what matters, not the subjective opinion of a wikipedia editor.78.16.214.238 (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Tempac and 78.16.214.238 is the same editor double-attacking someone, on the back of other people too. Yes it's the banned User:Wikipéire again (Pureditor, ThatsGrand etc) showing what an unpleasant person he is. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Your paranoia is incessant. And no evidence to support your latest allegation either. So much for AGF. It's quite clear that you are attempting to discredit every person who supports all these sources, namely that the term is rarely used in Ireland, is in decline and is offensive. It's surprising you've got away with these tactics for so long. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The evidence was placed, the indef block followed. Click the Tempac link. I'm making these comments when I see fit, as there is simply no on-screen record on Wikipedia, for when someone does what Wikipéire tried to do above - which was gang up on someone with his latest sock and his IP. What gets me is that you always excuse clearly poor acts like this. Isn't it funny how I am always paranoid? It's never bad behaviour by anyone else. Elsewhere in the world of Wiki you come on so self-righteously grave heart, but in here you simply show yourself up.--Matt Lewis (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish author Dervla Murphy in her book A Place Apart, published 1978, says how the term "British Isles", made her aggressive as an adolescent and then later on, made her wince. Then she adds "Now the pendulum has swung the other way and I rather favour it as a recognition of certain psychological and cultural facts, themselves the outcome of completed historical processes which it is much too late to reverse. It therefore pleased me to hear many youngish Northern Catholics casually using 'British Isles' as a natural description of these two islands." This is a quote from an Irish author, not my subjective opinion. Therefore, unless someone conducts a door-to-door survey throughout Ireland, the word offensive is a hyberbole and should not be used for this article.--jeanne (talk) 09:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "offensive" is used in verifiable and reputable sources in this context and therefore should be in this article. You may think it's hyperbole and others may think it's an understatement. Doesn't matter. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It matters in every way - because we need to follow our collective judgement to decide upon the nature of the sourced information. You simply do not understand WP:V, Wotapalaver. The first few lines of the Verifiability policy is unfortunately misleading to those you really want to believe something is Verifiable and therefore fact. These clutch of important sources are finite, and they have their own context, so cannot be appropriated as fact the way you want them to be. We need explanatory covering words for all contentious matters that don't have the kind of sources backing them up one would reasonably expect them to have. It is the part of the Verifiability policy called WP:REDFLAG. This is only a problem with this article because some editors have demanded these sources to be taken and written as fact, and have consistently edit-warred back to the locked status-quo to make sure it is the case. Wikipedia has its own encyclopedic context - it has to consider weight, quality and neutral point of view. Merely having 'reliable sources' is not enough to appropriate their content as fact.

According to Jimbo Wales in WP:WEIGHT, for the opinion of the significant minority (like we we must assume we have here, as we can't prove it's a majority), we should name the prominent adherents. Which would be Pollock as the principle polemicist, and Kearney who in his book British Isles, said "Almost inevitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable". But that is for outside of the Intro! In the Intro we should allude to the controversy without making the value judgements that we do. The "many" here would need 'many' sources to back it up - but we just don't many sources - despite the few who childishly say "many many many" like broken records. If we can't say who the many are, then "many" is actually a weasel word in itself. It should be "many nationalists" at very least - to say it on its own as fact when we don't remotely know who the 'many' are (let alone back it up as questionably as we do) is just not encyclopedic at all.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Weight requires that we give representation proportional to reputable sources who say differing things. Please provide reputable sources. Meantime, the reputable sources we have now support "offensive" very well indeed. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Again you misunderstand policy. Weight requires that we don't over-weigh, which includes the way, where and how that things are presented! We only need to balance if there is a balanced argument to do it with, but you can't balance against weasel words! It's actually notoriously hard to balance against the kind of negative statements of which people are unlikely to go around expressing the positive opposite. The disproportionate weight here is ultimately in the breaking of policies. NPOV, VERIFY and WEIGHT have all been broken here. And Wikilawyering like the above is the only answer to the charges. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

arb break in bold

(outdent) now we have removed "may" it seems reasonable to allow "objectionable" to stand alone, it makes the point and offensive is just a variation on the same. However if you have a clear list of sources then can you list them here, with the specific page or other references so they can be checked. If you have done this before then I have missed it in which case list the diff. --Snowded TALK 10:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

They are all in bold at the base of the article. They have a few others on a page somewhere, but they are more polemical, from more minor academic presses. The don't say "offensive" - they just highlight the problems/difficulties/criticisms etc with the term.--Matt Lewis (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Then its not evidence and the case for "offense" fails. Would have to be specific and reputable to count I think. --Snowded TALK 12:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(PS) Matt - your insertion of the fact request, didn't you find some atlases which had start using the phrase Britain and Ireland? If the "preferred" was modified (as you modified the reference to archipelago) and those references inserted then the edit would be reasonable? --Snowded TALK 12:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC

The "offensive" references are mostly listed in the /References page. They are from serious academic presses and other such reputable sources. They say "offensive" more often than anything else, although the term is also called "a contentious term if ever there was one" among other things. I have (twice) recently listed a sample of these sources without giving full citation details as these references have been available for months - and shown to MattLewis many times. The sources meet all the criteria of verifiability. Have a read yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References

As for editing the additional line in the intro, I hope we're not going to have another situation where IDONTLIKEIT is used to try to counter a serious verifiable source. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cartography was always the most persuasive argument for change to me (see my last proposal) - but as I argued in the discussion (or possibly the one just before it) - it is actually hard to prove. National Geographic have (recently I think) made a clause on the term, and changed the title of their modern British Isles map (the still sell the historical one) to 'Britian an Ireland' (although it says 'British Isles' in the fancy text on the map itself). It clearly seems to me they are compromising. Folens is a less of a good example, as they actually had no real complaints - but they did change it though as a precautionary measure. My only problem was that 'Britian and Ireland' road maps were always around (in my memory at least) and road, political and geogrpahical maps are all laid-out and labelled completely differently to each other. BI was only really ever used for the geographical maps surely? I've was always happy to exaggerate the map issue in terms of the available sources though (it's a kind of OR that a consensus can easily pass) - as it has the ring of truth about it.

Showing change, and showing 'offense' caused by the word "Britain", are two entirely different things.

As for the Intro - it needs detail from the article too, as Waggers pointed out a couple a weeks ago. It's been mostly focused on the offense! I don't find the word "many" encyclopedic - as I've explained just above... for the opinion of the significant minority (like we we must assume we have here, as we can't prove it's a majority), we should name the "prominent adherents" in the text per policy ...Pollock and Kearney .. and the intro must alude to the controversy but not make value judgements. "Many" cannot be defined (who are they?) so is a weasel word in an encyclopedic context. I like reasonabley sized intro's and always did - we could make a fine one if people allowed it to happen. Look at all the space given to the controversy in my last one. It's only sour grapes and the insistance on the word "offensive" that has made some people snub what it offers. Now the word "offensive" is gone, there are many approaches we can make. It certinaly needs is some history of the term and the lands - this is supposed to be a proper Wikipedia article remember.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree I'm afraid. Its a geography article and we agreed a statement about the objections as part of a discussion about its deletion or renaming. A couple of sentences to make that point is surely enough. Expanding the explanation will involve more disputes and would make it more political. Expanding the etymology later in the article, making a note all would make sense but I would oppose expanding the lede. --Snowded TALK 13:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC

I don't remember any 'statements of agreement' - it must have happened when I was away! I have to say those kind of things are not really recognised by policy anyway, unless they go through Arbcom. They are a certainly a snapshot consensus, an can be useful, but they are not at all MOS.

British Isles is a geographical ‘’term’’, not a geographical article. The article is full of history and controversy. I don't understand how negative politics is a more of a possibility within a longer intro? Gold heart or someone is always going to try and crowbar in the word "offensive" whatever the article is like - now, yesterday, next week, next year. Certainly BI is geographical as a term, and we certainly have a political introduction now – because in insisting "many" is fact, it fails NPOV re weight and verify (the guidelines cross-link - see above). But in properly showing why the term is controversial and disliked, and in alluding to all the reasons and examples, and letting people make their own minds up, we are simply creating a normal Wikipedia article.

WP is an inclusionist place by nature - attempts to artificially keep things at bay always meet with problems. This has been a nightmare article because of an ultimately 'censorious' intention to keep it short and sweet, and not always from one side either. We just need to tell the story, and admins at least are starting to see some light there (and hence will naturally go for it, if it actually has a possibility of acceptance). This article deserves to be the same quality as any other WIkipedia article, not be kept darkened by Gold heart etc like it is a embarrassing secret. If it contains the history and the controversy, it will always have political content to some degree - but that is simply life. As a term though, it's geographical for sure. But it’s still controversial, so we me must fairly show why. After WP:BITASK is completed it will only ever have a certain circulation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to keep things at bay Matt and I don't think there is anything "censorious" about keeping a political note on a geography page to a couple of sentences. Nothing is hidden, nor is the issue an embarrassing secret. Keep it simple, keep it appropriate or to use sales jargon KISS. --Snowded TALK 14:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep it simple? Sales jargon? This is a serious Wikipedia article! Do you really think I would work at this for a whole year not to wish for a serious article at the end of it? I am not at all an "imperialist British POVist etc" as I've been called by too many - I want a decent article here. How can I make it clearer? I really work at things - I don't just pass the odd comment. I don't even know where you are on what you are allowing now, and not allowing mow - but to reiterate my never-changed position: I want a classical Wikipedia introduction that sensibly and fairly covers all the requisite points. It must be NPOV, weight and Verified, passing all REDFLAGs. Something similar to my last proposal with some history. I am happy for it to more-than-fairly cover the controversy, as I see that as the best way of keeping this lock-cylce from starting again. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and as I've said to Sarah on a number occasions: lets get all the stuff in - you want it you've got it - just don't make it a simplistic and unpolicy political attack on the British.

Unless you have never bothered to read me, you must know that a serious introduction what I have always wanted, argued for and proposed on numerous occasions over the year, so why are we even talking like this? I really am here to build an encylopedia - it's not just a cliche with me. I keep finding that what I see as the 'short sharp shock' approach is what some people prefer. In my opinion, it totally demeans an article that deserves to be as good as any other. I find it like choosing to call someone a unfairly cruel and cutting name, rather than go into actual detail that has upset you. No explanations and no positive features given - just a stab. That is for me how the intro has been over this last year. I don't know where you stand on the policy arguemnt on words like "many" etc, but I hope that I've made my own unchanging position totally clear.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

<reduce>Matt, you have only ever argued to exclude serious verifiable references because - for some reason - you don't like what they say. Again, there are multiple reputable sources which say that the term is "offensive", "contentious", "disliked", "objectionable", etc., etc., etc and you have repeatedly tried to exclude this from the article even though you offer not a single reference to counter all the references provided. "Many" is supported by serious reputable verifiable sources, as is "offensive". You may not like that, but it's true nonetheless. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You are happy to copy and paste the same exaggerations for ever aren't you? You have done it all year long. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Except they're not exaggerations. They're on the /References page for anyone to read. You might try it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Matt you have got to stop attacking people just because they disagree with you. A geography article needs a proper geography introduction. That should follow WIkipedia guidelines. Given the history of "British Isles" it needs some reference in the lede to the controversy, but a couple of sentences is enough. The current words do not attack the British (and I don't think I ever have being a British Citizen) but provide a balanced statement that indicate the term is controversial. Its enough as is. Now it maybe that people want something more elaborate, lets see. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with being simple. --Snowded TALK 20:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really attacking you (stop saying "I have to stop" all the time, it's really annoying and leaves an unfair message!) - I exasperated with trying to make this article a normal article, and of repeating myself too. You know my position on this artcle needing a decent and covering intro - its all I've ever expressed! The BI term may be geographical, but you can hardly say the whole article is. It's full of history for a start.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it comes accross like an attack Matt, even when I try not to read it that way, and the language is perjorative. I know your position and I disagree with it. Please respect that. --Snowded TALK 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, for all editors, user Nuclare has recently added a few references from Irish newspapers to the /References page. These show fairly widespread dislike for the term in Ireland. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

And as if proof was needed that MattLewis hasn't read the references properly, an edit summary just now asks for text from a reference that's been on the /References page - which he claims to have read multiple times - for several months. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But not in the BI article, was it? People out there do read this you know - it's not all entirely for your own pleasure. I asked for the text to be quoted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) The reference provided was perfectly good and gave all information needed to find the cited text which - in addition - has been on the /References page for several months. It is not required to transcribe the text of a source into the citation. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

its disputed so it is required (if you want it to be taken seriously) to provide more detail as to the exact quotation you are using. --Snowded TALK 04:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference has not been disputed. In any case, it was an additional reference, not one adding any content to the article. As for being taken seriously, you don't have to take me seriously at all, only the sources. They're serious, reputable and verifiable. I - on the other hand - may be fictional. If someone wants to transcribe the text into the article, it's already in the /References page. Go right ahead. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Greco-Roman?

A quick one. Wasn't Greco-Roman a subset of Roman, i.e. Greek-Roman like Irish-American, not an addition of Greek and Roman? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Irish-American refers to someone American born but with Irish ancestry or an Irish-born person who acquired American nationality. Greco-Roman indicates the two cultures which formed part of the Roman Empire which often overlapped, hence in mythology the same gods having both Greek and Roman names. It does not mean Romans who had Greek ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Remember that there were substantial Greek settlements in Italy before the Romans came to dominate and the interaction of both cultures starts early. The meaning is nothing like Irish-American. It references a period of overlapping cultural influences in architecture, the arts etc. Neither word is a sub-set of the other. Yes it relates to the period of Roman domination but is represents not an assimilation of one culture by another, but a co-evolutionary process that created a unique culture in its own right. --Snowded TALK 14:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You put that beautifully Snowded. Where I live in the summer, there's a town close by called Taormina, and there's a beautiful Greco-Roman amphitheatre where one can see how the two cultures co-existed and produced marvels of civilisation which fortunately are still preserved for mankind to enjoy. The Greeks played a huge part in the settlement of eastern Sicily and left a stronger genetic imprint on the population than their Roman counterparts. In fact, my beach house is located at one of the first Greek colonies in Sicily. Unfortunately, it was later destroyed by the armies of the King of Syracuse, and all of the inhabitants put to the sword.--jeanne (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

@jeanne, most Romans didn't have Roman ancestry so that's not what I meant. I meant to query whether "Greco-Roman" meant the subset of Roman culture which had been influenced by the Greeks, or whether it meant an amalgam of the two cultures. Much Roman culture was not Greek influenced in any real way. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Romans ancestry was- perhaps Etruscan? But as to your question, it would have to be as Snowded and I have explained, namely a co-existance of the two cultures in the Roman Empire. Where I live one can see the evidence of the two civilisations, although Greek culture obviously pre-dates Roman. Sorry, ancient history isn't my forte. I prefer medieval.--jeanne (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was indeed Etruscan, they were the original kings of Rome before the Republic. I'm not sure co-existance is the right term, the Greeks after all were invaded and defeated both on the Islands and mainland Greece as well as Greek settlements in Asia. Many were taken as slaves including some of the great minds in the Greek world. It was certainly an existance, Athens remained of course and was actually built upon by Emperors such as Hadrian. The Romans took what they wanted from Greek culture and actually forced some of their culture on the Greek world. As I said, I'm not sure the term co-existance is the correct term. Robert Spiers (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the original Romans MAY have been descended from the Etruscans. AFAIK it's not settled. Anyway, later Romans were from Gaul, Hispania, the East, Africa, etc.,etc.,etc., and had little or no "Roman" ancestry. In any case, my question has been answered. I think I'd still prefer to say "classical authors" rather than "Greco-Roman authors", but that's just me. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's just as you say. There is no absolute proof they were descended from the Etruscans, although the Kings were Etruscans. just my opinion. I too prefer classical author to Greco-Roman author. Robert Spiers (talk) 22:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to say classical author does sound more precise than Greco- Roman. The latter is normally used to describe architecture not literature.--jeanne (talk) 07:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in point of fact, some Greco-Sicilian towns such as Tauromenium; today known as Taormina, enjoyed a nominal independence under Roman rule.--jeanne (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I inserted greco-Roman but I have no objection to classical author. (Though, idealy, I would like this linked). Lucian Sunday (talk) 14:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Norman intermarriage

If one studies the genealogy of the Anglo-Norman nobility who held land in England, one can see that they rarely married the native, primarily Saxon population, preferring French wives. However in Ireland, the opposite occured, with many Cambro- and Anglo- Normans taking Irish wives, and indeed becoming more " Irish than the Irish themselves". A notable example of such a union is that of Strongbow and Aiofe of Leinster. Today, the surnames in the respective countries reflect this, with the majority of English surnames being Saxon in origin, while in Ireland, Norman-derived surnames are widely dispersed throughout the island, irrespective of class. However, I believe they occur less frequently in the province of Ulster. The article needs to expand on this.--jeanne (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A good topic, but a proper treatment of it probably belongs in a more specialist article than this. The topic of the "Old English" which - IIRC - the Anglo-Norman families became after a while in Ireland is mentioned in many of the Irish history articles. Have a look there and see if there's already mention. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion probably belongs elsewhere but the arbitary deletion is not called for. On the subject - you find a similar pattern in Wales to Ireland. The Marcher Lords intermarry with the Welsh Princes over an extended period. Llywellyn the Great's wife was the illegitimate daughter of King John, Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort was wife to Llywellyn the last. The Mortimer family was more or less Welsh in part. It think its the difference between immediate conquest (Anglo Saxon England) and years of warfare, co-existence (Ireland and Wales) over a few hundred years before final conquest. Overall its an important aspect of British identity. --Snowded TALK 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What arbitrary deletion? 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at this diff --Snowded TALK 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, The Normans did take Welsh wives and vice-versa. Besides the Mortimers, other Marcher Lords who took Welsh brides include the de Grey family, de Braose, Talbot, de Lacy, I could go on. In the Welsh case, the alliances were obviously political, whereas in Ireland a mixture of natural assimilation and political. In England the Saxons were already conquered and the Normans prefered to make alliances in France to increse their holdings there.--jeanne (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. It was all very interesting. However, proper treatment of this probably merits a section in the relevant history articles. It's too detailed for an article like this one. Inclusion of such specific topics (e.g. the Anglo-Normans, native flora, geology, 19th century politics) would make the article too big. As for the deletion from the talk page and the articles, it seems that it was done by a sock puppet. (is that confirmed?) While the history section of this article was a right mess, perhaps it's worth discussing it before deleting it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about everything you say. I've already done a bit of editing on the Norman Ireland article. I have created a few articles on noble heiresses who came from Marcher backgrounds and I've included the intermarriage between the native Irish and Welsh with the Norman Marcher families. Also, Anne Boleyn is a descendant of such a union. (I added this in her own article). I was furious when I saw the deletion from the talk page, and I was equally pleased when I discovered another editor had restored it. Probably was a sock puppet, who knows?--jeanne (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you have that level of detail Jeanne it might be worth an article in its own right (Marcher inter marriage) or a section elsewhere. If you do post the fact here and I'll happily get involved. --Snowded TALK 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are already two Wiki articles which deal with the Marchers, Welsh Marches, and Marcher lord. We would probably be better off adding a section called Marcher intermarriage to one of the existing articles. I have a lot of info on the families who did marry and whom. What do you think? I take it you are Welsh, if I may be permitted to ask a personal question?--jeanne (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Welsh Marches could do with expansion. The interaction of three legal systems there alone deserves more treatment. Yes I'm Welsh (although we also have an Irish branch though marriage). openly declared on my user page. --Snowded TALK 15:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have just added a section heading on Marcher Lords called intermarriage with the Welsh. Unfortunately I cannot add anymore text due to lack of scholarly references. I just added the names of the families and a few of he notable people descended from such unions. It needs a lot of expansion.--jeanne (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Restore History Section??

While I'm not a fan of the history section on this page (rambling, disjointed, mostly unnecessary) its recent total deletion was an edit supposedly done by an editor being "Bold". If I'm not mistaken that editor was being downright naughty as they are a sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned editor, and they've now been indefinitely banned themselves too. It seems appropriate to restore the deleted material, at least until it is discussed and deleted by an editor in good standing. Any volunteers? I'd be afraid to break the page if try to restore such a big chunk of text. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If it's rambling, disjointed, mostly unnecessary as you've said, then what's the problem? Claiming that it was "naughty" is a bit of a jump. If there are valid reasons for it being re introduced then that can be discussed. Many editors edit and watch this page so if it was indeed "naughty", I'm sure it would have been reverted instantly.SitNGo (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted some of SitNGo's edits, but also left several as I thought they improved the article. So I don't think its appropriate to restore it. The editor concerned has been making some useful edits lately on several pages and seems to making an attempt to reform past behaviour. In any event we should deal with the content not the person. A good edit is a good edit not matter who does it. So I would say leave it, do not restore. --Snowded TALK 15:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked this sock. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A large number of the recent edits were by SitNGo, Dessence, HellBhoy and Editstan, all of whom are socks of a single indefinitely blocked editor. Let's just undo the changes that were made (except perhaps where they made minor edits like moving a comma) and then address the areas properly. I rather dislike the idea of blocked editors continuing to abuse the system and even getting into a discussion of whether or not their edits are "good" (which is debatable) is encouragement for more abuse. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The article should definitely have a history section; that may or may not be the one that was there, but often it's easier to start with something and mould it rather than to start from scratch. For that reason I think the history section should be restored. Waggers (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly; The history should be about mountain formations, silurian, devonian etc. This is easier to do from scratch. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

People should improve the piss poor History of the British Isles before adding a worse (even than that) section here. Lucian Sunday (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fully agree with Lucian Sunday, the former section was really bad and some of the changes made by the socks were good ones. Lets create something good, not restore something bad. --Snowded TALK 10:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's important though to remember that human geography is still geography. I agree mountain formations etc. make up part of the history, but so does farming technology, historic battles (and therefore politics), the expansion of settlements, building of canals, railways, roads etc. Waggers (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I agree that the History of the British Isles article is so poor. After all, it's a huge subject which is potentially a good reason for re-directs to other main articles. As for this article, I have already said that the history section was poor, but it did at least contain something useful for casual readers passing by (remember, other people just read Wikipedia, they don't all edit it). Let's restore what was there while we create something new. At least there's something to read in the meantime. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets get some perspective here. The material which has been removed is some fairly dubious stuff about ancient Thule. The Thule section is now about a paragraph which is more than enough with the pipelink. --Snowded TALK 13:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

At least some of the stuff about Thule that was deleted was the reference, not the text. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Then put the reference back in, but not the whole of a rambling paragraph! --Snowded TALK 14:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded: Re my revert. I'm sorry - I hadn't realised there was on-going discussion about the edits. When I had a look through the changes, I had noticed that most of the deletions and moves were of paragraphs and sentences containing references. Considering the editor who made them, I had come to the conclusion that it was vandalism of some sort.

For what it's worth, I think we should consider putting any deleted text back in and then just sorting what ever might be wrong with it, a bit at a time. --Setanta747 (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I though that was probably the case (hence the rv good faith edit). Actually I think our sock did a reasonably job of getting rid of some nonsense! --Snowded TALK 16:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Is four BI articles too much?

I posted this section at History of the British Isles the other day. I'm not interested in organising a merge etc myself, but I suspect this page isn't watchlisted by some people who aren't aware of it. Myself, I would put the timeline into this article as things stand.

You all need to decide about the dispute article too - do you keep it, or merge it back into here? Having four BI articles (BI, BI teminology, BI history, BI dispute) is too much to manage IMO, and although "British Isles" is certainly a geographical term, forcing the article to be geographical-only (the intention of these edits, imo) is simply non-policy. Ideally, we must have one singular sensible article - and branch outwards only when we need to. Some of these sub articles were made for the wrong reasons I feel - certainly the 'dispute' one was made after failed consensus, though may still be valid. We just need to keep to guildeines and policy, and believe that a fair encyclopedia can be written. AGF to WP. All per policy.

I think the closest people can fairly get to make this 'geographical only', is to actually merge British Isles terminology into this Birtish Isles article, and have serious separate history and dispute articles. Even then the main article can never be 100% geographical-only. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of History of the British Isles, although I hadn't watchlisted it as I thought it so disappointingly poor that it was beyond redemption. Having the the Bayeux Tapestry as the only illustration for the history of Britain, Ireland and all other island in the archipelago is breathtakingly insensitive. I think the list of links, and the timeline, are useful & relevant, but the lead paragraph ... Well, it could do with some work. I'm not convinced that the islands of Ireland, Great Britain and those surrounding have enough shared history to warrant a single article. However, any merge proposal would get my vote, if just to get rid of it. Daicaregos (talk) 16:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well a problem is that few Irish editors are going to work on improving an article called "History of the British Isles", are they? Maybe we should change the name to something more WP:NPOV ?Sarah777 (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be inappropriate to merge articles into an article that already has a "too long" tag on it, as British Isles currently does. My preference is for there to be separate articles where there's enough content to justify them. Waggers (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretically there is enough history to for here and a history article too, but it is being removed from this one without the other being developed. Subs are fine of course - but they should really be develop as extensions of the main article, and ideally be referenced in the main article too (so there would still need to be an appraisal of the history here at least). That means we should still cover some history in this introduction, whatever happens.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I´m inclined to agree with Waggers. This article is already very long, so adding extra content would (in general) not be helpful. The previous history section was pretty poor but I'd prefer to improve it in-situ rather than leave it deleted by a banned sockpuppet. As I said, then there is at least something for Wikipedia's actual readers to read while Wikipedia's editors improve the content. The resulting section may finally be considerably shorter than was there before and could well point directly to the "History of the British Isles" article for most of the content. The main "History" article will inevitably have many many pointers to other articles. There's so much content that it would be extremely ambitious to try to get it all into one article in anything other than the most high-level way. 83.36.123.176 (talk) 11:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars

(randomly placed comment that ignores all discussion and makes no useful point except being disruptive removed.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC))

Can we please stop this nonsense. We know that the issues are controversial, we know the have to be discussed on this page. This is just going to end up with the page protected again. In response to the comment in one of the edits that the talk page is going no where and therefore tharky is right to make the changes - well that is true of lots of pages here. I could say the same about the ROI/Ireland naming controversy but people are keeping that to the talk page.

Not only that reversions in the face of consensus are clear 3RR even if you don't go to three. This is especially true where you have (as is the case here) previously made a similar change and ended up in an edit war with the page protected. --Snowded TALK 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk, talk, talk. That's all we ever get here, and 99.9% of it is unproductive and not related to improving the article. Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold and that's what some editors have finally decided to do. Yes, stop reverting! Thark didn't start it, he made some modifications which were then reverted without discussion. It's better to try and build on edits rather than just reverting. Try and use the current version as a baseline for further improvements - and keep anti-Britishness out of it. LemonMonday (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

* The existing text was agreed by consensus and supported by citations. Its more than good enough for purpose. Thark is knowingly taking a contentious position so building on that is not possible (other than by wholesale deletion and rewriting). This is classic case of not agreeing with a consensus, so coming back every few weeks to see if you can get away with a minority position this time. very bad practice. If there is a sensible discussion then let it take place here. There are more important things to do on the article than constantly war over a couple if sentences which are now stable. Oh, and Thark did start it check the history (as he started it some weeks ago in another edit war. As to "some" editors, we are talking about one editor and an IP which appears to have been created just for this purpose ...

• Its worth remembering where the current text came from. It was agreed to stop an edit ware over renaming or deleting the article. So being bold could involve going back to that dispute as well. --Snowded TALK 08:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Talk before deleting content. As for "anti-Britishness", there wasn't any. There were important facts, fully supported by reference from verifiable reputable sources. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have put the page back to the state recently left by Snowded. That is an interim step to restoring the content to the state is was before the banned sock puppet that recently came by and removed other references. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And who's the banned sock puppet, is it you by any chance? 141.6.8.89 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question appears to have been set up to revert back to the recent controversial edits by Tharky. I have no idea if they are a sock puppet or not. Personally I wish all you IP editors would just create a name it would make life for the rest of us a lot easier.--Snowded TALK 09:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The banned sock puppet was variously SitNGo, Dessence, HellBhoy and Editstan. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

My note seems to have crossed with Snowded's. The sock I'm referring to was several days ago, well before the recent delete-fest that TharkunColl kicked off. The IP editor Snowded is referring to from last night does seem to have a particular liking for TharkunColl's edits. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl has edited out all the referenced content again, and again no willingness to discuss. This is pure disruption and starts to look like deliberate vandalism. I'm going to put the content back to where Snowded left it a couple of days ago, with the supported content in place. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Snowded beat me to it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of what LemonMonday has said is correct - there is too much talk here not aimed at improving the article, Wikipedians are encouraged to be bold, and it is good practice to build on other people's edits. That said, pretty much everything that Snowded has said here is correct: deleting other people's edits is not building on them and consensus is more important than boldness when it comes to controversial or sensitive issues. Adding NPOV, referenced material without discussion here is fine, but deleting referenced text that's been discussed extensively and achieved some form of consensus is most definitely not. Waggers (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am very open to changing the text - but it must be by agreement here. --Snowded TALK 09:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the texts are referenced, but that's not a reason for keeping them. They are simply not needed because they impart a thoroughly anti-British POV which I personally, and others, find offensive, so these texts should be left out. They add nothing to this article. LemonMonday (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

And another revert to delete content by Tharkuncoll's buddy. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The text being deleted is not "thoroughly anti-British POV". If nothing else, the references supporting the text are often from British sources. In any case, whether you find it offensive is irrelevant. Your opinion doesn't matter. Only verifiable references from reputable sources matter. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, I was trying to avoid page protection, but the offending users are now using other IP addresses and protection now makes more sense than blocking 5 or 6 users at a time. Waggers (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A competely unfounded accusation, and very likely wrong. Why are you, as an interested editor on this article protecting it? I see you waited until the POV version had been restored before protection. 141.6.8.73 (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The key text is now back to the consensus achieved here. The edits that Tharky recently inserted were discussed above (after his last near edit war) and did not achieve support. I suggest if you think changes should be made then you list them here, with citations and make your case. --Snowded TALK 10:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well since the article is blocked we can't do anything else so we await these arguments and citations with bated breath. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Who put that line in about there being evidence that "Britain and Ireland" is coming to be preferred? The notes don't support any such thing and it's just WP:OR. And yet it has been allowed to stand. Every few months this article gets hijacked by a vocal, politicised minority who don't care about facts as long as they can twist them to their own ends, a huge argument ensues, and it ends up with just a little bit more POV in it. ðarkuncoll 11:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, so lets go through it Tharky, List the statements you think are unsupported and also the ones you want to make (applying the same standards of evidence). Happy to engage with that and improve the article Please do make make accusations of hijacking when you have twice now (thrice if you include the original mediated discussion) attempting to insert a position that did not achieve consensus. You also only seem to move a discussion here when the article is blocked or you are on the cusp of 3RR which does not look good. On the single point you raise above (which is only one minor issue in your edits) I know that there was some work looking at the different atlases and the way their names had changed. Now that might not be enough or it might be OR in which case that edit can be changed. I am sure that Waggers or another admin will make agreed changes while the page is blocked. --Snowded TALK 11:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the citations, merely their relevance. They are most certainly in breach of WP:Undue weight. And since when has one revert been on the "cusp" of 3RR? Looking through atlases, needless to say, is the very epitome of original research. ðarkuncoll 11:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Your previous attempt whet to 3RR, this time you individually didn't but two IPs also got involved. Either way lets move on to the content. From the above it seems that you are

• arguing that the "move to B&I" is original research and effect would want more citations to accept it?
• arguing in respect of some other citation or wording that citations are not relevant. I assume this relates to the objection statement where you want to make it historical. This was debated only a few weeks ago and the argument was made that if the statement has been made and not retracted then it still stands. There was no agreement to any change then, do you have new information or argument to bring to bear?

Are there any other specifics? I'd like to get this discussion structured and resolved if we can --Snowded TALK 11:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to have missed the point. I'm not disputing any individual citation, merely their relevance. How come we don't have citations for all the times the term has been used by Irish ministers and in official documents, for example? This is simply presenting one side of the issue. We should have both, or neither. ðarkuncoll 11:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Im still trying to understand the issue. You may be saying that you want all statements to the effect that there is "British Isles" is a controversial term in Ireland removed. That is one interpretation of your point on relevance. However you are allowing in your edits for the statement to be in the past. If that is the case then the point about a statement standing until withdrawn still applies. --Snowded TALK 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. You've missed it again. ðarkuncoll 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, probably because it's called IDONTLIKEIT. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets assume good faith for the moment. OK Tharky if I have missed it then state the specific amendment and the rationale for it. Ideally as separate points rather than a large number in one group. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Putting all the citations in the lead about how people in Ireland object to it, but putting none in about how it's used in Ireland by, for example, government ministers and parliamentary reports, inflates the importance of the objections and makes it appear they are (near) universal. This distorts the truth of the matter. So we either have citations for both sides or - since this is just the lead, after all - none at all, with just a simple link to the controversy page. ðarkuncoll 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, then I revert to the prior discussions. After a long debate it was agreed to keep one sentence in the lede to indicate that the phrase was controversial. On that basis in part we resolved the issue of the page being renamed. The challenges to the sentence resulted in a an increasing number of citations being put in place and they should probably stay. The fact there is some continued use in a geographical context justifies maintaining the name of the page, the fact that there are objections justifies a single sentence stating as such. The existence of the page gives you balance I think. I repeat an earlier question. Have you got new argument or evidence here or are you simply raising again (for the third time) an issue for which you have not been previously able to gain a consensus? --Snowded TALK 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

As I have said here just recently, I’ve not personally seen any prior discussion on having a single line in the Intro for controversy. As for “long debate” - It’s been an ongoing debate all year – and I’ve been part of it all year. I know of no singular 'fall back' moments that anyone can cherry pick here. I've discussed my position here continually all year and I never would have agreed to keep "one single sentence in the lead for the controversy". One sentence is simply not enough to cover it fairly, per source-use policy on WP:REDFLAG sources, and to not actually come across as anti-British it its sharp terseness. It fails weight in its shortness too.

No ‘game-show’ arrow is suddenly going to stop on any one talk comment – debate that draws claim on a prior consensus in this way, whether it is true or not, is destined to carry on forever at it misunderstands consensus anyway.

All of us here must be listened to, and we must decide what fits policy, and we must compromise our own wishes by using English language to best explain all of our favoured positions: the awkwardness, the controversy, the current use. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Why assume good faith with someone who blasted in like TharkunColl did? The argument will be simple (and my comments in brackets). Here goes.

The term is used around the world (true) therefore we shouldn't mention any problem with it (false). Even if there is a problem with it it's only some loonies in Ireland (false) therefore the Irish are outnumbered by the British who all still use the term with no problem (false). Since everyone except some lunatic fringe uses the term with no problem (false) putting the objection in the lead is unjustified (false).

The simple fact is that TharkunColl has been opposing any mention of the problem with the term for years. As more and more evidence was gathered he has had to resort to more and more desperate arguments. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

m So anyone who objects to your POV agenda must be doing so in bad faith? ðarkuncoll 12:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, but I don't have a POV agenda. You do. As for Sile de Valera and the one time she said "British Isles", this is an old argument of yours, one that you run away from every time someone brings references for all the times that the term has been objected to in the Irish Parliament. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't helping. The best way to resolve this is to keep to the rules and keep it objective --Snowded TALK 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree it isn't helping. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do have an agenda, though not a POV one - my agenda is truth and accuracy. I have no truck whatsoever with those who push any political POV that conflicts with this. ðarkuncoll 12:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. The text is true and accurate. We're done here. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The thing about truth is, you can still mislead - in effect, lie - by stating the truth, but not the whole truth. That's precisely the problem here. Nothing it says is untrue, but what it misses out renders it, nevertheless, false. ðarkuncoll 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Then Tharky, make the argument rather than saying that you are the champion of truth, light and reason. I've tried to outline the issue (including the past history), Please engage with that if you want to resolve this. --Snowded TALK 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have. I have stated my position. Any further argument is about as useful as wrestling with a jellyfish - no matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. ðarkuncoll 12:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Jumpin' Junipers - The fact that the article is named British Isles & has within its content, mention of the controversy of the name? is the compromise of this article. Be happy with that, folks. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You know I didn't see TharkunColl trying to add any truth to the article. I did see him delete lots of stuff he doesn't like. 'nuff said. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder, how easy would it be to start our own WikiBrit; a Wiki from the British perspective? With such a site it would be possible to have a sensible BI article, not one stuffed full of crap and hatred like this one is. 86.0.92.239 (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your man above says that the current version is 'a thoroughly anti-British POV'. Is he for real? And the title of this article is not a 'thoroughly anti-Irish POV'? It's screaming centuries of British imperialist hegemony over the Irish, of a red hatred for us, our language, our culture and our history. How blind do you people wish to be? 86.42.65.157 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's views like yours that we can well do without here. Why don't you go to the Irish Language Wiki? 86.0.92.239 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There is nothing anti-british in saying (fact) that there are objections to the use of British Isles to include Ireland. I object to being called English overseas when I am Welsh but to protest that does not make me anti-english. If this article is stuffed with anti-British material list it here as a set of bullet points and if it is really anti-=British then it can be changed. Throwing out general accusations without specifics is poor editing. --Snowded TALK 20:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there are objections, but I'm also sure they are miniscule. Your average Irishman doesn't bother about it. Objections are proffered by a vociferous minority of opinionated commentators. The issue of objections to the term is given far too much coverage in this article; it is laboured excessively with multiple references to it. That's the problem. 86.0.92.239 (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see two comments on this, one in the lede and one in the the next paragraph. That seems minor and does not qualify as "multiple references", neither are your comments on the motivations of other editors accurate or helpful. However I think the second set could be consolidated into the first and the article would be better as a result. Would that make life easier for you? If so I will attempt a draft and see what people think. --Snowded TALK 21:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Two comments eh? Well here's what I've found in the article:

Second sentence in lede (no less!) The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.

The Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.

Some critics of the term "British Isles" refer to Britain and Ireland as "the archipelago". As mentioned above, the term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland. One map publisher recently decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in Britain.

While it is probably the most common term used to describe the islands, use of this term is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.

And then bolded in the references, we have:

This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands

the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously

the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities

the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular

many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable

The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.

We would discourage its usage

A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

Plus various rants, introduced with the excuse of their being references.

And you're telling me that, quote "That seems minor and does not qualify as 'multiple references' ". I think not! As I said, the issue, such as it is, is laboured to an excessive degree and brings the whole article into disrepute. And don't forget that there's a whole article about nothing but "the controversy".

And another thing (apologies for starting sentences with and), right now we've got a user (HighKing) who's doing his damdest to rid Wikipedia of the term British Isles. He's causing mayhem all over the place and it turns out he's got a track record in this going back many months. Great eh! 86.0.92.239 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I had counter two of those as one, and I can see that there is one other minor one in the History section. Then there are a lot of references. One reason for that is the amount of requests for citations etc which have built it up.

So I return to a proposal. I am happy to attempt a consolidation of the main text comments into one small section in the lede and then trip the references to those required to support that text and remove embolding. If I do that have we a chance of getting some agreement here (of course other editors may object). On the other matter removal of British Isles when it is appropriate is as bad as inserting it when it is inappropriate. So maybe we should try and stop both? --Snowded TALK 22:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then, put something together and let's have a look at it. I'll view it critically if you like. Maybe we can move forward, but I wouldn't bank on it. This article has been in the mire for as long as I can remember. On removal of BI, I know HighKing is active in its systematic removal but I don't know of any user doing the reverse; that's not to say there aren't any, of course. 86.10.1.31 (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the blocked edit-warring anon IP address. I loved your articulate arguments when reverting my edits .. that they were irritating.  :-) Made me laugh - thanks. --HighKing (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bank on anything on this page. However I think if we make an effort its possible, and if reasonable efforts are rejected then the position of involved editors is a lot clearer. I will attempt something tomorrow. It would be very helpful by the way, as you appear to be using multiple IPs if you would identify yourself when editing (something like XYZ here or similar). I am making a good faith assumption that you are not Tharky. --Snowded TALK 22:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct, I'm not Tharky, nor anyone else that might have been a "suspect". No need for XYZ. Here's my new user ID. Thanks. MidnightBlueMan (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If 86.x or MidnightBlue is so sure that objections to the term in Ireland are miniscule I'm sure he'll be able to find supporting references. Otherwise his sureness is simply unsupported and - according to the existing references - WRONG. Other users like TharkunColl and Matt Lewis have been saying the same thing for a long time but have yet to produce even one reference in support of something that they are SURE about. As for the multiple references (which are all footnoted as one reference), they are there because there were multiple users who were SURE that there were no objections to the term, then who said there were not enough references to be sure that there were objections to the term, then who said that the objections weren't strong enough, then who objected when there were lots of references. There's a whole backup page of references if anyone feels that the current small sample isn't enough. Right now the argument is again the old favourite..."I know that there is no objection at all and there are also too many references shown in the article that prove that there is extensive objection, which couldn't be right because I know better". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the opposite of 'many', "miniscule"? You are running my name down again when I'm not around, Wotapalaver - I've warned you about that before. I never said anything was "miniscule" - I have always wanted to give the issue more (and hence fairer) space. That you have to play these underhand games shows how your arguments are lacking.

You cannot find counter references that says something "is not true" when there are only a handful of references that say that it is true! The 'page of refs' do different things - they show tracts, small and some larger presses, variations of the term - stop pretending it is a page of proof of something, when it proves only how finite the issue is. You have a clutch of awkward refs, one by Kearney who uses the term, and ones by Pocock and Davies - the two main polemicists. There should be many sources for the use of "many" as fact - there are only a few, so they fail WP:REDFLAG in regards to being appropriated as fact. Especially Kearney, who uses no notes for sources, at all, and used the term himself. Wkipedia needs at very least a reasonable amount of verifiable sources for a controversial statement such as this (including neutral sources that verify themeselves) - we simply do no thave them.

If we had the scores of available sources we must expect, we would not be debating this. The telling lack of sources is because the 'objection' is too weak to report - and there is no great political movement to remove the term, as some people reading the bias in the article have assumed existed! Understanding the weight of this balance, we must then convey it properly. We must use our own words, and not cherry pick others. Kearney had his own unreferenced context, and it was his own work (he actually used no notes at all - in the entire book! He merely gives us text and a bibliography). This is our work - we have our own concerns of weight, verifiability, neutrality and context. We use sources with utmost care. Simply finding a source does NOT mean we can simply attribute what they say as a fact.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars (arb break..)

(outdent) We've been through a lot of history on this and the current article reflects it. I think its now time to attempt a tidy up and I will try out a draft later today/tonight. MidnightBlueMan, thanks for creating a new ID it makes life a lot easier and is much appreciated. --Snowded TALK 07:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current article does reflect lots of work and compromise. It's not easy to change the lead without causing all sorts of trouble. Without specific (and supported) suggestions from these new arrivals I'd suggest leaving well enough alone. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to stop this coming up again and again at least for a period. I agree that the lede was negotiated over a long period and it should stay substantially the same. Some OR has crept in and there is some duplication later in the article. I am going to draft something to remove the OR and duplication (and excessive referencing by placing it somewhere else in case it is needed) to see if we can improve this and then seek an agreement to prevent edit warring when the article is unprotected. It may be too ambitious but its worth a try. --Snowded TALK 10:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The lede was not "negotated for over a long period" - that is just not true at all. All year it has been argued over and locked on the status quo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the OR? One thing I'd like to see is the text of reference [5], which doesn't seem to be available online anywhere and isn't (AFAIK) in the /References page. Also, it seems to me that reference [4] should be where reference [5] now is. Finally the phrase "There is evidence that" is weaselly, but removing it would potentially make the sentence about the change in use too strong. It's supported by the references and it matches my personal experience, but I suspect removing the weasel words would simply provoke the IDONTLIKEIT - or perhaps they should better be named the IDONTBELIEVEIT - brigade. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points, the OR is in saying use is changing. If we give examples of change of use which are cited (the atlas) then its not OR. I know its a minor point but it would wikify the statement and make it stronger as a result. --Snowded TALK 11:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not OR. It's supported clearly by the references. Look at them. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 11:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

50-50 I think and I'd like a wording that makes the same point but could not be argued as OR. Remember OR in WIki terms is very technical, it would not count as OR in an academic paper (one of the oddities of this place). Look I can't draft now have work to complete before US wakes up. I will do something tonight, give me a chance and suspend judgement! --Snowded TALK 11:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's not 50/50 at all. Those are clear and simple. IIRC there are a couple of similar refs in the /References page. Besides, the issue that's been discussed before, and which no-one could ever figure out how to present without it being OR was that there are various atlases which used to publish "British Isles" versions and which now publish "(Great) Britain and Ireland" versions. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-read those two references. There's no OR and no 50/50. If one were to add the National Geographic style guide as well it's pretty clear that "there is evidence that Britain and Ireland is becoming preferred to British Isles. Again, no OR. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How many times does this have to be gone over again and again and again? There are plenty of sources supporting opposition (to put it mildly) to this term in Ireland. At the top of this page is an entire list of references, academic and otherwise, emphasising the offensive and objectionable nature of this term. We have map changes galore from National Geographic to Collins to Phillips to, well, is any map company still producing maps with the title 'British Isles'? These are serious and major international publications in the anglophone world. Leaving aside the extensive references, the very m<script type="text/javascript" src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John254/Addtabs/monobook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>arked avoidance of its use in Ireland is the most obvious sign of its offensiveness in general Irish eyes. That avoidance is an unequivocal statement of objection just as when we avoid saying 'Nigger' we are making a statement of objection to racist views. Now, however, one of the usual suspects under a different guise has popped on to stir the shit, just as Thark did over on the River Shannon page last month when he unilaterally placed the phrase 'British Isles' in the article and caused at least a month of resistance until the original form was reinserted. Across wikipedia articles that began with 'Britain and Ireland' have in the past year been renamed 'British Isles' at the behest of a British nationalist lobby here. Nobody seems to be paying attention to that most politically motivated development in wikipedia. Why? Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Very few of the maps have changed from using "British Isles" - they didn't use it in the first place. Therefore they are unsuitable as references to support a change away from using the term. And "the very marked avoidance of its use in Ireland is..." original research. Yes there are some references that show the term is controversial in Ireland, but hardly any of them go as far as "offensive" which is the word that's been used here so much. And there's nothing "politically motivated" about Wikipedians wanting consistency on Wikipedia, or using guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME as a basis to achieve it. Waggers (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Several maps that used to be "British Isles" are now not. Reader's Digest, AA, National Geographic (now changing) are some examples. As for "offensive", I have recently pointed out the multiple examples (look on the /References page) from extremely reputable sources where that exact description has been used. As for avoidance, the recent case from the Irish senate was illustrative. One senator used the term and the record of parliament shows the reaction of the rest of the senate, with them reacting "British Isles!?". At least one French TV station - that we know of - no longer uses the term. The issue here on Wikipedia is denial - indeed obstruction - of verifiable facts. The motivation for this denial is the puzzle. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Good observation. There's a number of editors that only pop up when the term "British Isles" is being edited in articles (to edit war and stonewall), and most of the edits made are not in line with discussed best practices and guidelines at WP:BISLES. The insertion-editors will say that this a fair tactic due to other editors removing the term from articles, although none provide references to back up their usage. If you revert or are perceived to edit against them, you'll be labelled "Political" and will be accused of "having an agenda". Your edits will be quickly reverted and a new trend is a clear pattern of tag-teaming. A mini edit-war broke out yesterday over Glowworm between two anon IP editors, both subsequently blocked. Discussions on Talk pages are irrelevant and futile. You're a mug if you rely on policies or process - they'll reject it as a content dispute without regard to accuracy, facts, references, etc. The only solution is to make progress in the WP:BISLES taskforce... --HighKing (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC) --HighKing (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, as (talk) above has just shown, you are wrong to claim these maps did not previously have the term British Isles. You are quite plainly wrong. Check your sources before making these claims, please. Also, the fact is that consistency was in these articles, consistency around the term 'Britain and Ireland'. That consistency has been changed to 'British Isles' so it clearly was not about 'consistency' but about politics. Furthermore, 'common name' does not apply either as those articles are not discussing the Channel Islands, Isle of Man etc (e.g. Anglican Cathedrals of the British Isles) but just Britain and Ireland and clearly, therefore, are most explicitly politically driven. Why are you in denial about what is going on? Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you making this general discussion so personal? This is a collaboration, not a crusade. Nevertheless, I admit I haven't read the references and I apologise. But do we have firm references from reliable third party sources regarding the maps and their reasons for changing their names? Asserting that they've changed on the talk page is one thing; finding reliable third party references showing not only that they've changed, but that they've changed because of the controversy around the term "British Isles" is something else completely. If you can provide me here with a single reference from a reliable secondary or tertiary source for both the "many find it offensive" thing and the maps thing then I'll be happy. Of course I can't speak for TharkunColl and his followers though. Waggers (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My followers? I think you credit me with a little too much influence... ðarkuncoll 16:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded is going to put a proposal together that rationalises the references to the "controversy". Why not just let him do that and see what he comes up with? The point made above is that the issue of the "controversy" dominates this article in a most unhealthy way. Yes, it should be mentioned, but I would say only once, and with a single reference. Anyone wanting to find out about the "controversy" can go to British Isles naming dispute. MidnightBlueMan (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) @Waggers. As far as I know, no reliable secondary or tertiary source mentions the fact that the mentioned atlases have stopped using BI, except for the famous Folens/Philips case and the National Geographic case. Examples have been given but a trend has never been stated in the article. It's been mentioned as a trend in the talk pages, but not in the article. However, there are two reliable references that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description, and several more reputable sources hint at the same thing but not in a sufficiently unambiguous way. That's completely in line with my experience and with the examples. As for the "offensive" sources, I'm a little depressed that you've never read through the /References page. It's been mentioned enough times. The sources for "offensive" are impeccable, including presses like OUP and CUP. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the clarification. I'm very aware that both sides are prone to exaggeration here, and it's important that the map name changes are put in context. We need reliable, preferably secondary or tertiary sources for the name changes and for the reasoning behind them. I promise I'll get round to reading /References day - from what I've read on this page it's a bit of a monolith and needs a fair bit of time set aside to read through, which is why I've never managed it to date. Waggers (talk) 07:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the map name changes have really been put into any context yet. The references now used in the lead don't mention maps, just that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming preferred (one says "favoured") to "British Isles". That could be maps, books, anything. The reason given in the sources is basically that "British Isles" is a troublesome phrase nowadays. The maps that have been mentioned as examples of alternative names are the famous Folens/Philips case and the National Geographic case, which actually seems to have arisen because of pressure in the USA. In any case, IIRC maps aren't mentioned in the lead, nor has any trend of maps changing names been asserted anywhere. There does seem to be a trend for maps to avoid the term but - as discussed previously on these pages - for editors to put a number of examples together and declare a trend would be OR. As I said, the references in the lead don't discuss maps, just that "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a favoured term. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The term has obviously always been a troubled phrase to varying degrees - I just can't find all that much evidence that it more so "nowadays". I cannot accept that any examples of non-use we find, automatically equals an 'objection' – not unless I see clear evidence for of the objection. We simply must not assume such a 'negative reasoning' without clear evidence - as it would simply be WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Doing our own research such as compiling a table, or weighing-up refs and deciding upon a weight in talk - is not original reasearch, howerver. This cannot be stressed enough - we are allowed to use our minds. We don't just need refs to say "x = y". On the contrary, we should be more cautious with those refs.

I'm willing to compromise regarding the maps, despite my suspicions that there has been more of a 'uniform' gradient of redused usage, as I have said before. We can say there is recent evidence of change, and it has the ring of truth, and some decent examples too. To go further would be to use 'OR' to try and prove that the matter is a 'current problem'. The term has always had its in-build difficulty and disapproval, so why can't we just document it historically (like an encyclopeida is supposed to do) instead of claiming that there is a tide for change? The only tide I see here is the 'natural' climate change, not the 'man-made' forces that are claimed by some here.

As people keep saying (often when passing through here) - the current intensity of this dispute seems to be almost entirely a Wikipedia phenomenon – and the Wikipedia phenomenon aspect has to be guarded against, even though we work on consenus (an in-built paradox to Wikipedia). I often feel that the intensity over this subject is as much of a testiment to the enormous latent power in Wikipedia, as anything else. It's wrong to have a POV, but we still need to be fair.

IMO, the term has slowly been used less and less over the generations - no huge moves, just less and less use: ie. it is a natural, slow, change. Change is slow, but change always happens - we should not ever just assume 'active resentment' as a drive for any perceivable change. We need some more examples (esp. outside of the polemics of Davies and Pockock) that people actually want to see a change to be able to say in Wikipedia that it is so. If we can't say it so - then why even suggest it? --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There's extensive evidence that it's pretty objectionable nowadays so there is no need for us to do any OR. Also, it's not really necessary to compare and contrast with the past, although there is reference that the term was pretty uncontroversial up to Irish Independence or thereabouts. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You are joking aren't you? If there was extensive evidence for current feelings we simply would not be having this intense debate!! If some people were simply more honest to themselves about the available evidence actually entails, they would not be so angry and dismissive towards the people like myself, who only wish to edit in an intelligent way with what we have - and not excessively with what we so intensely believe must be out there 'somewhere'. The map issue is about change - and my question was about evidence of a desire for change.

Unfortunately, there is almost no evidence of strong present-day real-life feeling on this: which simply points to there actually being very little strong feeling on this. I mean 'strong' in the sense of swinging one way, and not mixed feelings cancelling each other out. This lack of desire to get in a huff perfectly reflects the real world - where the term is widely used on TV, in technical diciplines like geology etc, and in the media. Careful politically correct institutions like the BBC have not picked up on any significant 'offense' to significantly change its policy over, and the BBC has always catered for Ireland and Irish people. If the term was as widely objected to as some people insist, the term would simply not be in common use at all. We are not Barbarians out to insult each other.

People like myself are not in this debate to pushing an anti-Irish view - it is a because we want and need to see a Wikipedia that is consistent throughout in being a fair policy-driven process. And we see unfortunate signs of this issue hopelessly becoming stringently anti-British (which the dispute article was at one point, and this Intro pointed to being very heavily, due to weight issues and inappropriate use of the type of evidence that is available to us: It was cherry picked, exaggerated, unweighted and appropriating unverified controversial opinion as 'fact' - all in a totally insensitive way to a whole British culture! And it still is to a lesser degree. We can only use what we have at hand, not the incessant but totally empty 'reassurance' from a small group of people that we have so much more evidence (in quality and quantity and relevancy) than we really do.

The irony is that we can do an awful lot with what we have - ie. show that there is objection, and properly convey the reasons why. We have to be particularly careful that we don't make criticism of the anachronous wording of the term appear to be criticism of (and objection to) Britain itself. It would be nice if we could all actually agree to that. --Matt Lewis (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)