Talk:British Isles/Archive 28

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

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

6000 Islands

This is the only reference I can see that comes near. The Ireland article is (wisely?) silent on the matter. Lucian Sunday (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of dropping any reference to a number of islands. It only makes sense to quote a number if you also define what you mean by an island. How small does an island have to be before it ceases being an island and is merely an islet, skerry, sea-stack, rock, or mud-bar. What about tidal islands? If we really want a figure, assuming we can find a verifiable figure, we should quote the number of inhabited islands, or alternatively make the definition more explicit and say N islands over (say) 40 hectares. (That figure is what Wikipedia uses in the list of islands of Scotland, and which is in turn taken from Hamish Haswell-Smith's book The Scottish Islands.) — ras52 (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You're a bit late here. It's already been changed to 136 permanently inhabited islands. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is Informative - why the hang-up with timing?. Why diss someone who is more interested in disseminating knowledge than pushing Irish Nationalism or British Nationalism in relation to Ireland? ras52 I would say to you: "Thank you for bringing list of islands of Scotland to my attention, I read it & understand why it is a FA, ...and sorry i didn't say it before. Lucian Sunday (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Common Travel Area?

I'm just filling in a form and it asks 'Have you lived in the Common Travel Area for the last 2 years?' and then proceeds to define the said area: 'Note The Common Travel Area is Ireland, Great Britain, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.' Is this the area people are actually referring to when they use this archaic term "British Isles"? If so, I think the reason they avoided using the term "British Isles Travel Area" must be addressed and maybe this current title is simply a duplicate of an existing term on wikipedia? 194.125.52.48 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that is what it said on the form? Seems odd as the Common Travel Area is of political boundaries, and is defined between the United Kingdom and Ireland, with Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Canterbury Tail talk 11:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I just googled as a phrase "The Common Travel Area is Ireland, Great Britain" and got the following results: http://www.google.ie/search?hl=ga&q=%22The+Common+Travel+Area+is+Ireland%2C+Great+Britain%22&meta= This definition seems to appear on official state publications in Ireland. 213.202.140.74 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Protection?

Okay, this editing is getting silly again. Everytime British Isles becomes unprotected some kind of edit war breaks out on it. I think it's getting to the point where this needs to be one of the permanently protected articles, only available for edit by admins and edit requests. In the last year this article has been protected 12 times, for 101 days during that period. If these edit wars don't stop soon, then it may have to be done. So please, lets all be civilised, anons and registered users, people on all sides of the argument. Remember we're here to build an encyclopaedia, not re-enact the last X centuries of history or carry forward prejudices and personal feelings. Lets smooth over our differences and move forward. Canterbury Tail talk 12:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was doing quite well. Nothing's happened for eight hours. Sureley that must count as some sort of record? Is there something good on the TV that I've missed? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a bit extreme (permanent protection). Its linked to things like the Ireland naming dispute which is under Armcom mediation at the moment. The last consensus was reasonable and we have held it for some time. That included a recognition that the term can be offensive, and an acknowledgement that the article is about geography not politics. If that is threatened then OK its probable open edit warring and protection, but I don't see anything that occasional protection (and semi-protection) will not resolve. --Snowded (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Permanent protection! That's the dumbest thing I've heard of in a long time. This is a Wiki, or do some of us here not realise that? No articles should be permanently protected in a Wiki. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet there are articles that are permanently protected on Wikipedia, due to edit warring just like this. Being permanently protected is of less disruption to the project than constant reversion warring. Canterbury Tail talk 19:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Permanently protected articles might as well not be there. They are not really part of Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They are, and they can be edited by request. Mind you Wikipedia may be going the way of all edits must be confirmed by someone else before they appear anyway, just like the German version. Just because a wiki can allow anyone to edit, doesn't mean everyone has to be able to edit. Plenty of wikis that don't allow anyone to edit. In fact the Mediawiki software itself has code to lock editing down completely. Canterbury Tail talk 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've requested temporary protection. An Editor is inputting text without consensus and I really do not wish to continually revert.MITH 23:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure your request will be granted for one editor inputting text. I'm guessing someone will come along soon to revert him again. Jack forbes (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I've reported the editor in question for disruptive editing, so maybe the admin involved will do the honours.MITH 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

ARBITRATION ENFORCEMENT, as it's TROUBLES related

This article should fall under ARBITRATION ENFORCEMENT, as it's TROUBLES related. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Troubles-related articles are defined as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, the Baronetcies, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland". I think saying that this article is related to any of those is a bit of a stretch - it's a wording that is contentious in Ireland, yes, but I don't think you can directly relate it to WP:ARBTRB. Black Kite 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Black Kite but I totally disagree; while many on both sides have tried to downplay the relevance of Irish nationalism and British nationalism in relation to Ireland in relation to this article (and indeed to the article talk page and the use of British Isles throughout Wikipedia), my own investigations of the history of the term and its usage keep arriving back at those very issues. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is not Troubles related. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a Troubles related article. Canterbury Tail talk 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It most certainly is Troubles related; - "British nationalism in relation to Ireland" exactly describes the imposition of the name British Isles on this group of islands. Slam dunk, if ever there was one. Sarah777 (talk) 01:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But it's nothing to do with British nationalism. There appears to be a perceived British nationalism by some people, but it's simply the common term and nothing to do even with the British. It's a global thing. Canterbury Tail talk 11:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I somewhat disagree with BlackKite, it's not just Ireland, it's international. The whole business here is to get a fair and equitable article, an article that is not being POV-driven, from either side of the spectrum. There are many fair-minded editors here who want a fair and unbiased article, but some editors are driven by WP:MPOV, and they really do believe in their own "map of reality", and WP:OR features on the talk page in a big way. purple (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the troubles, although a couple of Irish nationalists would love to try and make it so. This is an article about the British Isles, just because a few people want to come here crying about the name doesnt justify linking it with the troubles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles are in the UK, so you'll have to accept they are British inspired, especially since we all live in the "BI", don't we?. Well, I never use the term, and some folk don't like that fact. Anyway, it should be under the "Troubles Arb" perhaps, as it attracts extreme British Nationalist, and Irish Nationalist viewpoints from time to time, but not always! If this is going to cause disruption into the future, and edit warring, then I most strongly recommend it to the T-ARB. purple (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)I seem to recall that my own and Tharky's behaviour on "British Isles" edit-warring was ruled on the basis of this falling under or being related to "The Troubles". So which is it? --HighKing (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Important This topic is currently up before the Great & the Good. In the future, I have every intention of templating on 1RR breaches. I would suggest anyone has any problem with this, seek clarifcation now. Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case nothing will ever get changed in this article. As for the garbage below, it's beneath contempt. 82.28.1.66 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this article title has absolutely nothing to do with centuries of British actions against the Irish people - genocide, scorched earth policies, massacres, dispossession, cultural, linguistic, legal and religious oppression, to name a few. No connection at all. And The Troubles clearly have nothing to do with these British actions either. They were simply a group of less civilised Irish people causing trouble for Her Majesty's loyal lieges. No justification for it at all in the Realm. It's all those damned irrational Paddies causing trouble while the nice impartial British are only trying their best to be as helpful as possible to the poor benighted natives in Ireland. As with everything about British colonialism in Ireland the term "British Isles" is a harmless apolitical term with no intention of claiming ownership over Ireland and dominance over the Irish people. It's quite simply unimaginable that British people, given their glorious record of helping the Irish throughout the centuries, would ever have such thoughts of hegemony and superiority! Ah yes, the "British Isles" indeed. Innocent as snow. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Lions

Why did the rugby associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland agree to change the name to British and Irish Lions if objections in Ireland are only limited to 'some' people? (I take it rugby wouldn't be associated with the more patriotic and socially radical types of Irish people so that change must say much about the level of Irish objection to the term) 194.125.52.48 (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read the article on British and Irish Lions corectly, and the name changes will make sense. The team were never known as the "british isles lions". They played as the Br itish isles until 1950, when they adopted the term British Lions, and from 2001 have been the British and Irish Lions, as clearly not all participants are British --IdreamofJeanie (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope I've managed to read the British and Irish Lions article corectly. In the section British and Irish Lions#Naming and symbols it says that "On their 1950 tour of New Zealand and Australia they also adopted the nickname British Lions". The word 'also' implies that they continued to use the name British Isles until 2001, when "The team adopted this latest name [British and Irish Lions] as many Irish are not at all comfortable with being labelled 'British'".Sadly, there is no citation provided for this assertion. However, I assume that the statement "... many Irish are not at all comfortable with being labelled 'British'." was the point of the IP's post. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The term "British and Irish Lions" has been around since the 1970s at least. See "Yearbook of the United Nations 1980" [1]. Also another ref [2]. This was discussed earlier this year, here here. That article is not correct. purple (talk) 10:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems a shame that no one has bothered to correct the article since that discussion, despite people being aware it was wrong. Nevertheless, it is not incorrect to say that the name of the team has changed from the British Lions to the British and Irish Lions. If the name change occurred in the less than recent past that would suggest that "many Irish [have not been] at all comfortable with being labelled 'British' " for longer than originally suggested. That being the point, rather than when it happened. Daicaregos (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Letter in this morning's Irish Times from one Richard Murnane in Australia which neatly links the term "British Isles" and the "British and Irish lions": http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/index.html#1224245517951. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Championship?

The British Isles Indoor Bowls Council is the properly constituted body for the game of indoor bowls in the United Kingdom [Web Ref]. I'm confused but I'm not convinced there really is a BI Championship even if they claim there is. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob, there's alot of people who aren't convinced there's really a BI. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any Irish tri-colour on that site. Why they would call it the British Isles Championship is anybody's guess. Jack forbes (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

They probably call it what they do because the organisation represents most areas of the British Isles (IoM possibly excepted). Anyway, it's not a requirement that every element of the BI has to be included for the term to be valid. Including England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the Channel Islands - as they do - is more than sufficient. Anyway, I'll check if there's an article about this organisation, and if not, I'll write one. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess its not a requirement that every element of bowls needs to be included either. The claim is only for Indoor Bowls and not Crown Green Bowling - British Crown Green Bowling Association or Flat Green Lawn Bowls Bowls England Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It all depends whois using it, as it is a subjective term. The problem with the term is that it is geo-political, and this will lead to all kinds of problems with its usage. That's why the term is now avoided by many organisations, governmentss, and mapmakers. purple (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah 'bowls' the ultra popular ancient Irish sport played in every parish from Armagh to Cork - not. Does any Irish person know somebody who plays that sport? Clearly it's the usual politicially motivated "British Isles" title imposed by British people to cover Ireland. Road bowling, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter as many an Irish person from Armagh to Cork could tell you. It will be a long time before there is a "British Isles" anything regarding that sport, for the simple reason that Irish people actually play it. 15:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps we should rename the FIFA World Cup, I dont think every part of the world takes part in it. :O BritishWatcher (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom

Ref: "British Isles." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2009. Encyclopædia Britannica Online Library Edition. 28 Apr. 2009 <http://library.eb.co.uk/eb/article-9016524>.

Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good, compromising sentence for the article's lead. It gets my vote, anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me --Snowded (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a weasel-worded reference and is therefore no use. Furthermore, there's no point in finding a separate reference to back up the point they are making because that would be synthesis (WP:SYNTHESIS). MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, exactly which part of the sentence shown above do you consider incorrect? Daicaregos (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the same thought. Are you saying any reference no matter how good that says it is becoming increasingly controversial is no use? Jack forbes (talk) 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the problem is with the word "some". This weasel word does not impart information such as 'who' or 'how many'. It could mean "..especially for some [Wikipedia editors] in Ireland..", for example. Yes, it's a bad reference. LevenBoy (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, forgive me for being a little dim here, so if the reference said "Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially in Ireland, due to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom" it would be fine because the word "some " is not used? Jack forbes (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I forgive you. If the reference was as you suggest, it would certainly be better. However, it doesn't say that; that's your quote. The Britannica quote is a weasel quote. They are saying "some" without further clarification. You get this sort of thing all the time in the media. You must have come acorss loads of similar examples. LevenBoy (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When we use a reference for an article there is no need to transplant it word for word. The main point of the Brittanica ref is their assertion that it is becoming controversial. You say it is the word "some" which makes it a weasel quote because they do not clarify it further. Would you say their assertion that it is becoming controversial needs clarifying? Should all the refs in wikipedia need their own refs and so on? Jack forbes (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Until someone actually conducts a house-to-house (or pub-to-pub) survey in Ireland, in order to determine exactly how many people do object to the term British Isles, the word some will have to suffice, as many needs a reference quoting precise numbers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for the pub-to-pub survey if someone else wants to do the house-to-house. Jack forbes (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to bring your camera along; just to capture people's expressions when you pose the all-important question!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont see the problem with that suggested wording as long as its for the second paragraph of the introduction and not the first paragraph. I think the 3rd paragraph overplaying this Dee guys use of the word is more of a problem than the second or first though. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If those who like the sentence from the Britannica Encyclopedia i hope they take a moment to read the first paragraph of the British Isles article on there. It seems to back up the definition of British isles, and yet some people have tried to have this article and its contents changed. And one other point, Does EB have an entire article on the naming dispute itself? If we are going to copy and paste from another website maybe we should delete the naming dispute article ? :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is fine meaning-wise, but if it's a direct quote from Encyclopædia Britannica then we can't use it as that would be a copyvio. The only thing it really adds to what we already have is the word "increasingly". waggers (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Para 2

I've just noticed this in paragraph 2; "The term has been removed from some atlases following a request from the Irish Embassy in London for better monitoring of the term's "abus[iv]e" usage in the British media which might contravene the Constitution of Ireland." This is a scandalous misrepresentation of what was actually said. This cannot be justified in the article. LevenBoy (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is what the quote actually says "It was also reported at the time that the Irish Embassy in London had been urged to monitor media in Britain for "any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation". Absolutely diabolical that some editor should interpret the latter as the former; quite reprehensible. LevenBoy (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the diff [3]. LevenBoy (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

They've been removed.MITH 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just noticed. LevenBoy (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Its not suprising that something so silly was added, it happens all the time here. Not only are there Irish nationalists we also have a bunch of separatists pushing POV as well now. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Where have you been BW? I've missed your salient and pertinent comments. Is it a bunch of separatists? Isn't it a troop or a gaggle? Anyway, welcome back. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 08:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jack, i was too busy yesterday watching the news coverage about the upcoming pandemic to come on but im back now. As for the correct word to describe a group of separatists i am unsure. I went to an English school and we all know despite evil Englands domination of the United Kingdom, Scotlands education system has always been far superior, so you tell me. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a preposterous article. Although Ireland was once part of the UK, it was NEVER part of Britain. The term “British Isles” is NOT universally accepted and therefore should NOT be used as if it is. Why has wikipedia adopted a “geographical term” that for the most part is only used by the British and areas of British influence? If Irish people suddenly decided to refer to the two islands as IONA, or even the “Irish isles” would Wikipedia be so quick to support and use the term? One country does not have the right to dictate the contents of an encyclopaedia according to its own tastes. One country does not have the right to create a pseudo geographical term and expect the world to accept it without question. This issue has obviously been discussed to death on this board, however, it will never end until the correct conclusion is reached, i.e that Ireland is not politically , nor geographically connected with Britain! This outdated term should not be recognised by any decent encyclopaedia ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondolfus (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way that would happen is if all those decent encyclopedias, map makers, and expert authors of the political and geographic terms of the British Isles agreed with you. Then the refs would back up your opinion. It may happen one day but until then there does not appear to be much to change here other than bits and pieces. Jack forbes (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

"A preposterous article"? Nowhere near as preposterous as your comment Rondolfus. "that Ireland is not politically , nor geographically connected with Britain!"? Like it or not, Ireland is politically linked with Britain. Part of the island is in the United Kingdom, and both Ireland and the United Kingdom are members of the European Union. That is fact. You may not like it, but walking around with your eyes closed won't change it. And geographically connected? Ireland's nearest neighbour is? Indeed it shares a common boundary with? Could it possibly be the United Kingdom? Until you can get someone to tow Ireland off into the western part of the Atlantic you had better get used to the idea. Wikipedia is full of people attempting to rewrite history but Rondolfus has to be one of the first to attempt to rewrite geography. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand it could be argued that Britain gerrymandered the border back in 1922, and took possession of that part of Ireland by force. So basically the British are there by force of arms, and always were. You may not agree, but it is an argument of equal validity, and it would be contrary to your one of course. Anyway the term British Isles is a subjective term, and leads to much confusion, which is where these probs arise. Another example of the confusion is whether the Channel Isles are included or not, or whether the Faroe Islands, which are geographically a part of the same island group, are apparently excluded for political reasons, and who has say over these matters. purple (talk) 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't make assumptions about my political views, Purple. I would agree that Britain gerrymandered the border back in 1922, and if you could ever persuade the people of Northern Ireland to join the Republic I would support that. The problem with unification at the moment, when it is not supported by a majority in Northern Ireland, is that you would almost certainly end up with a northern loyalist rebellion against the Republic, as the Irish government knows only too well. Yes, I know its a bodge that was created by the British, but then we could spectacularly bodge things couldn't we, not just in Ireland, but in Cyprus, Palestine, South Africa, Zimbabwe and India to name just a few? And whining on about it for 87 years without ever doing anything to encourage the northern protestants to want to join the Republic hasn't exactly helped to resolve the issue, has it? The argument put forward by Rondolfus earlier isn't exactly calculated to endear many northern protestants to the idea of a united Ireland either. Remember, in the early days of the 20th century, many working-class protestants actually supported the idea of independence, and supplied at least one of the rebel leaders executed by the British. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Skinsmoke France is only a few kms away from England, however, I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t support a term such as the Franco-Region of Western Europe to describe the location of your country. Likewise the close proximity of Ireland to the UK does not validate the “British Isles.” As for Ireland being “politically connected via Northern Ireland” , the Islas Malvinas and Gibraltar could be considered parts of Argentina and Spain under British control, but you hardly consider Britain to be “politically” connected with either country or do you?

Personally I find the term “British Isles” abhorrent , even so I realise my personally opinion counts for nothing in the overall scheme of things. What gives weight to the argument against the use of the term is the fact that one of the two politically independent nations that it “applies” to, officially rejects it. In other words 50% of the independent nations that supposedly make up this “geographical region” don’t acknowledge it. My issue with Wikipedia is that it is ACTIVELY using the term despite the fact that it is disputed. This contravenes its promise of impartiality.

Oh yea, If I could tow Ireland away I would tow it to the Caribbean for the weather, however, I wouldn’t tow it away on account of Britain. I’ve become quite accustomed to my neighbours postcolonial eccentricities. I find it all midly amusing. So until you can get a time machine and travel back to a time when Ireland was under British occupation, I suggest you continue using this outdated term in order to satisfy the void that "no longer having an Empire" has obviously left in your life.I on the other hand will continue to oppose itRondolfus (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would consider Britain and Spain to be politically connected. As I said about Ireland, both are in the European Union . That's a political connection.

The problem so often with the Irish is that you think people in Britain actually care about "no longer having an empire". Back in 1922 many Britons probably did. But ask most today whether they want Ireland back and you will get a resounding no. Most English are completely ambivalent about whether Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom and if they could see a way of reintegrating the North into the Republic without creating another bloodbath, would probably support it. Independence for Scotland - supported by a growing number of English, particularly those who have settled north of the border, as the SNP knows only too well.

I understand that many Irish don't like the term British Isles. Personally, I would be quite happy to see Celtic Isles replace it in everyday useage. But that hasn't yet happened. Once an alternative term is widely accepted I will be more than happy to see the Wikipedia article appear under that heading, whatever it is, even the Definitely Not British Isles if that's what you manage to persuade people to use. But until then, the majority of the English speaking world uses British Isles, and, as this is an English Language venture, that's what the title should be under. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote; "I understand that many Irish don't like the term British Isles."'. Not totally true, the term is rarely used in Ireland, most Irish people don't care what people in Britain want to call the group, and would consider the term outdated in a modern forward democratic world, and thus avoid its usage. The term is occasionally used throughout the world, its usage is the exception, rather than the rule. I think the problem with the term is that it started out in life as a political term, of Great Britain claiming ownership of all the islands in the group, and to many people that original meaning still stands. As Britain ceased to be Roman Britain, Ireland ceased to be a British isle. purple (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also a connection between Ireland and Britain through centuries of intermarriage; hence one finds many Irish surnames in Britain, and vice versa.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Quote- "There is also a connection between Ireland and Britain through centuries of intermarriage; hence one finds many Irish surnames in Britain, and vice versa"

Intermarriage is not really relevant, especially when you take into account that Irish can be found in nearly every corner of the world, most notably in America. The main fact is that Ireland and Britain are two separate nations and despite (for the most part) speaking the same language, there are still significant cultural differences. However, in this age of globalisation there are obvious similarities, but these are not limited to the UK and Ireland, they extend throughout the “Western World” and usually originate in the USA. Modern day similarities between Ireland and the UK, has more to do with American influence than it has to do with Irish and British integration.Rondolfus (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Modern day similarities between Ireland and the UK, has more to do with American influence than it has to do with Irish and British integration". What utter bilge. 141.6.8.75 (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rondolphus, you obviously did not understand my comment; I said that Irish surnames are to be found in Britain and vice versa; so what does Irish immigration to America have to do wih that fact?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rondolphus, you can give exactly the same argument for Scotland being culturally different from England. The fact is, whether we like it or not both Ireland and Scotland where partially anglicized long before US culture and globalisation came upon us. You only have to look at some of your towns names which were changed from the gaelic to English to see that. I agree there are cultural differences but any similarities are mostly down to the English influence.Jack forbes (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the US was anglicized long before it became a global power which has led to Britain and Ireland being Americanised in a reversal of cultural domination. When I was in England in the 1970s I never heard Americanisms like one does today. I can remember when they still said greengrocer, wally, and bloke!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Irish surnames can be found in England, but far fewer “English” surnames can be found in Ireland. Intermarriage in Ireland was not as widespread as you are making out. Besides the English who inter-married with the Irish adopted Irish culture and became “More Irish than the Irish themselves” as the saying goes.

I also think Jack Forbes is underestimating the cultural gap between Ireland and the UK. Firstly the main genetic line in Ireland has been recently been traced back to the Basque country and Northern Spain , which demonstrates a significant genetic difference between Irish and British people. Furthermore, Irish identity has been shaped by two major factors i.e. Celtic culture and Catholicism. And yes Catholicism still influences Irish law as seen by the fact abortion is illegal and divorce was only legalised in the last 15 years. Celtic influence is evident from Music to sport to politics.

Its convenient for some people to lump Irish people in with the British because both nations speak English, but if Irish was still spoken as the main language on the island things would be different. Jack your point about Scotland is true to a certain extent, although you have to realise that England and Scotland (for the most part) share a common religion, class system, sporting tastes etc. Traditional Scottish sports such as “shinty” are not popular but go to Ireland during the summer and you will see Gaelic games regularly sell out an 80,000-seater stadium (far more popular than soccer). Oh yea, Irish also use the term “soccer”. If one of the most powerful empires in history couldn’t persuade this small nation that they were “the same” as the British, I hardly think a few editors on Wikpedia will succeed.

I suspect you are of the same opinion as Winston Churchill, when he said,

“We have always found the Irish a bit odd. They refuse to be English.”Rondolfus (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, as a person of mostly Irish descent and a fervent supporter of Scottish Independence I think you may have got me wrong there. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said the English and Irish were the same, of course they are different; however, there is a lot of Celtic mtDNA in the English. What I had said was that the two people have been intermarrying for centuries. Look at the old Norman-English nobility. Most of them were descended from Dermot McMurrough through his daughter Aiofe's marriage to Strongbow. McMurrough's great-granddaughters all married into the English nobility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish, British, Spanish, Canadian, Mexican, Iranian, Japanese etc. We're all the same folks, we're all Homo Sapiens (Human Beings). GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC),

Are you certain about the sapiens part. No, don't take it out, please! purple (talk) 17:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Going going.... Jack forbes (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait Jack, I don't get it. Let me get it before it's gone.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, there is still a sense of humour on this page, which is nice to see. ;) purple (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll drink to that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

British (i.e. English)

Is anybody actually claiming that the entire concept of "Britishness" would exist as we know it today without the English recreating the concept of "Britain" and "Britishness" to dupe the Scots and Welsh into thinking they had an equal share in running the English empire, now renamed the British Empire? After all, it's not as if the Scots and Welsh conquered England (except in the most embarrassing versions of "celtic nationalism"). Any time somebody says 'British', I just think 'English' for this reason. Talking about "Britishness" and "British Isles" is a concept and strategy from a different era that is now of less use to the empireless English, even if it has a certain allure for certain "traditional" (i.e. 19th century onwards) types. 86.44.25.72 (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It was the Stuarts who promoted the concept of Britishness - the English were deeply suspicious of it. The term British was not used by Cromwell's government, for example - which did everything it could to distance itself from such Stuart pretentions. ðarkun coll 21:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the ip concerning the use of the word British. For many people (not all) it is becoming just another name for English. A long time ago when abroad I answered Britain in reply to the question where do you come from, only to be asked where in England I was from. I of course never made that mistake again. It matters not where the name came from but rather how the name is used and perceived today. Jack forbes (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely getting the article title to reflect it's subject matter is an attempt to improve the article? If you are not interested in that aspect of article improvement then why bother engaging in defence of the wrong title with such passion? Sarah777 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you 'must' cite. purple (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Please, if your going to reply, do me the courtesy of not quoting WP this and WP that. It irritates the hell out of me when people can't use there own words to describe how they feel. There are so many WP's it makes my head spin. Go on, tell me I've gone off the subject or something, it would at least make it more human. Jack forbes (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Check the indentation, Jack. My comment was directed at the anon IP. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not as if the Scots and Welsh conquered England? Maybe conquered is not the correct term, but the Tudors were a Welsh dynasty who overthrew the previous English dynasty. And they were succeeded by the King of Scotland assuming the English throne, and its unification with the Scottish throne. Apart from a brief break when the English parliamentarians overthrew the Stuart monarchy, there wasn't another genuinely English dominated power structure until the reintroduction of parliamentary democracy, the monarchy of the United Kingdom having been given over to a succession of Dutch and German occupants. It may surprise some editors, but it isn't all about the Irish! Skinsmoke (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should get something straight. England did not conquer Scotland. The powers that be betrayed the Scottish people when they decided to make the union. The only problem I have with my fellow Scots is that they did not fight hard enough to defend our independence. Oops, is that WP:NOTAFORUM? Jack forbes (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I don't disagree with a word that Jack says, that's referring to the union of the English and Scottish parliaments, when the Scottish establishment voted (after a certain amount of alleged bribary) to abolish the Scottish parliament and unify with the English/Welsh parliament. My point was that England had earlier lost its "independence" and subsequently a Scottish monarch ascended to the throne Skinsmoke (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The irony about the Tudor and Stuart royal dynasties is that they had very little Welsh or Scottish blood by the late 16th century; indeed they were both predominantly French. So when the Scottish Stuarts replaced the Welsh Tudors, it was really a replacement of one French-descended royal dynasty by another. I have pointed out before that Elizabeth I was the first English monarch since Queen Matilda to possess more than a microscopic fraction of English blood (which she obtained from her mother Anne Boleyn). I also need to point out that many English people in 1603 were apprehensive about having a Scottish monarch ascend the English throne. That is very likely why Dee came up with the term British Isles, as a way of influencing the English population not to regard the future Scottish king as a foreigner. By 1577, it was patently obvious that the son of Mary Stuart would succeed to the throne following the death of the childless Elizabeth Tudor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting though all this may be, none of it is directed at improving the article. Please see the policy WP:NOTAFORUM, also linked at the top of this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeanne Boleyn. That focus on the emerging Scottish monarch(s) is a very persuasive explanation for the greater emphasis on "Britishness" as a unifying force by ideological imperialists in the late 16th & early 17th centuries. I think that has relevance for the emergence of the term British Isles in the English language at this period. Just for the record I have never used the term, or heard it used here in Ireland. It seems politically contrived and you have highlighted an aspect of this I had never thought about. 213.202.140.74 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Remember in his will, Henry VIII pointedly excluded the Scottish descendants of his elder sister Margaret from succeeding to the English throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we haven't stumbled on the core problem here. There are clearly two conceptions of the term British Isles (and indeed British). It is quite evident from the discussions that in Ireland (and probably also in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the nationalist/loyalist argument) British implies some sort of English and/or Scottish dominance over Ireland. Here in England that is simply not the case. Rather, British when used in England implies inclusion of the Scots and Welsh, who get really upset when English is used when English, Scots and Welsh is meant. It would be interesting to know from Scottish or Welsh editors what the subtext to British means in those countries. This could possibly help us all move on from the naming arguments. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish-Americans can continue to admire National Geographic without cognitive dissonance. - a quote from the Sunday Tribune article on National Geographic dropping as inaccurate the term "British" Isles to include Ireland. It would be nice to be able to edit and read Wiki without "cognitive dissonance". The reason, Skinsmoke, that most Scots/Welsh don't have a problem with the word British is because they are British!! Self-identified (and validated in Scotland's failed independence referendum). Sarah777 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Try reading my point again Sarah777. I made no attempt to suggest whether the Scots or Welsh find the terms British or British Isles acceptable. I explained the uses of the term here in England. You are making an assumption that the Scots or Welsh don't have a problem with the word. Scottish and Welsh nationalists may well disagree with you (so may Cornish nationalists for that matter). And as far as I'm aware, Scotland has not yet had a failed independence referendum which could validate anything. Indeed, Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, has stated that he will be sticking to the SNP's manifesto commitment to hold a referendum in 2010. Instead of arrogantly trying to impose your views on the other nations in these islands, why don't you just let them speak for themselves? Skinsmoke (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you want us to hold a vote on who is offended by the term? My god we really do go round and round in circles on this place. There is no naming dispute, sources back up the fact we live in the British Isles even if every single person in Ireland is offended by that it doesnt mean we can just stop using the well known and used term.

As for Mr Salmond, less than 35% of the people who voted in the Scottish parliament election voted for the SNP (they got more votes in 1999). That means over 60% of the people voted for parties who have declared their support for the union and are committed to defending it. Its very unlikely a referendum would be held although i cant see how any of that has anything to do with this matter. The British Isles is a geographical term, its not a political one. This is a waste of all our time. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note to dispel a common misconception (slightly off-topic but can't hurt), Cornish nationalists have no problem with being called British, it's being called English that they are unhappy with. --Joowwww (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Off topic slightly, but Joowwww how many Cornish Nationalists are there? The article on their silly independence / self rule doesnt actually mention the numbers, its obviously a tiny minority but are we talking two or 3 digits? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I should take your question seriously when you use words like "silly", "obviously" and "lol". --Joowwww (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i dont take things on Cornish nationalists very seriously because its a joke. Cornwall is part of England, its been that way for quite some time and it aint ever going to change. :) Perhaps all the counties of England which unified 1000 years ago should break up and go their own way aswell? lmao, what a world we live in, with globalisation its amazing people still think such silly things. :\

No, it's merely your opinion that it's a joke, and like all democracies Cornwall will decide how it is run, not the rest of the UK. A MORI poll in 2003 by Cornwall County Council showed that 55% of people in Cornwall want a Cornish Assembly. I wouldn't call that "obviously a tiny minority", would you? Also, if it was just a fringe opinion, why would the Lib Dems feel the need to run a nationalist campaign in Cornwall to get elected, including this essay by Andrew George MP last month? Perhaps in future you should refrain from commenting on things you clearly know nothing about. --Joowwww (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

However the same MORI poll indicated an equal number of respondents in favour of a South West Regional Assembley .^[1] Serpren (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, only 48% of the English identify themselves as British "in any sense" British_people#Demographics - a figure that's even smaller for Wales and Scotland. The only place where a majority identify as British is in Ireland - Northern Ireland to be precise. ðarkun coll 16:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Lemme join the dots for you:) A person born in the United Kingdom of Great Britain is called "British". Thus if the Scots/Welsh decide to remain in the UK they are deciding to remain British. That fact they consider themselves Scots/Welsh/English first and British second, or whatever, does not alter the fact that they are British. We, citizens of Ireland, on the other hand are not British. Thus we object to our island being called British whereas most Britons, unsurprisingly, do not. And Skinsmoke, there was a referendum on Scottish independence I believe; Scotland chose to remain British. The Scots Nats have been around for the past 40 years or more; no majority. The Irish voted for total independence at the first chance we ever got, in 1918, giving Sinn Fein an overwhelming majority. Stating simple facts isn't "arrogant". Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In fact if you want an example of "trapped" or unwilling British people look no further than the Nationalist population of NI. They have given modern Sinn Fein a substantial majority; something Alex never got from the Scots. Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want this to sound like a party political broadcast, Sarah. You have to understand that Scotland's fight for independence is a completely different type of fight that Ireland had. I believe I have said this to you before but if you asked anyone 20 years ago if they thought the SNP would form a Scottish Government, even a minority one, they would have laughed in your face. The SNP have had to convince people to vote for them, whereas there was no doubt who the Irish would vote for. Jack forbes (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I know Jack - but it's taking a long time! My main point is that being officially British, people in Britain can hardly be expected to object to being called British. People who absolutely are not British, such as the Irish, can reasonably be expected to object to it's imposition on Wiki by dint of the voting power of British editors. Also, nobody had to convince us that we weren't British - we are very aware of that! The difficulty the SNP is having must mean the average Scot isn't so sure what he is?? Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Sarah. I can't object to that. Even though I don't self identify as British and never will my British passport tells me different (unfortunately). Would you put me down as a British editor? And remember, all good things come to those who wait. PS, Scot's in my opinion are slowly but surely remembering who and what they are. Jack forbes (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed its understandable the people of the republic of ireland dont like the term British Isles, unlike in Scotland, Wales and England which are actually part of Britain and people there are all British citizens. Alex Salmond is British.. sadly. But this makes no difference, unpopularity doesnt mean editors on wikipedia can redraw the world map. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Alex is sad about it, but why are you sad BW? Jack forbes (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

It makes me sad that we have some British citizens who are separatists that seek the destruction of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

And it makes me sad that the English couldn't rest until they had conquered Wales & Ireland and economically pressured Scotland into Union. (There are a number of people in Africa and Asia who have the same view). Neither that feeling or yours have anything to do with this article. --Snowded (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, Wales and Scotland can choose to become independent countries if that is what they really want, But every parliament or assembly election shows the majority of people in those parts of the United Kingdom vote for parties that want to continue this union and do not support the separatists especially in Wales.

Whilst you may feel very unhappy about how this country was formed, perhaps you could point me to the history books where Wales or Scotland formed in a democratic way at the wish of the people? As for having nothing to do with this article, the same can be said about most of the conversation on this page. The whole thing is a joke because we have certain Irish nationalists attempting to rename the British Isles because they dont like it.

Im sorry you and others are unhappy about our shared history, i dont know how all us evil English people can sleep at night, but ill give it a try. Night :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I said you were evil BW, I'm not qualified to judge that matter. I do note however that romanticism about our "shared identity" seems an English phenomena. I do remember my grandmother telling stories of how she was beaten for speaking welsh in school because it was an "uncivilising influence" though. I suppose that was necessary so that we could have a common heritage. --Snowded (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Beaten by a teacher of Welsh nationality, no doubt. The arguement on this page is one of the most banal I've recently come across. Forgive me for wondering, but is the year 2009 or 1809? 82.14.88.139 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a common language is important part of our shared identity. I hear more talk of "romanticism" about the celtic people but ive yet to understand why you are any more celtic than you are British. As for the treatment of your grandmother, sadly people didnt respect human rights back then as we do today and the IP makes a good point about who enforced those rules. Wales before the nasty English arrived wasnt a peaceful democratic nation which respected human rights like no other. Times change, in the past we use to kill people for being "witches", today one of Britains greatest exports is a film about witches and Wizards. In the past the Welsh language may of been restricted, today it has equal status with English and it happened without Wales leaving the United kingdom and without a separatist party coming to power. Wales Scotland and England were not democratic countries when the UK formed, today we are and that is part of our common heritage. =) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

And just like those same "British" map makers changed the names of good Gaelic names in Scotland to anglicised versions, or even completely different names altogether. I mean, how can we have a shared history when it's so different? Anglicise everything, that's how. Jack forbes (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

One more thing BW. Does this make you proud to be British? Jack forbes (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A single language for a sovereign state is vital and that language is English. Thankfully today because we invest so much in education and technology it is possible for more than one language to be taught successfully in schools for all people. That is why Welsh has equal status with English in Wales now, despite no separatist party ever coming to power and forcing such a change or the break up of the United Kingdom. Ofcourse in Scotland its alot more difficult, you have more than one regional language and i think its very unfair that Gaelic is being considered more important than "Scots language". As for map makers, the fact remains the main Irish publisher highlighted in this article was sooooooo offended with the term British Isles, they only stopped using it a year or two ago in Ireland and continue to use it in Britain.

As for the oil matter, there are far greater things to be ashamed of about being British than government / civil service policy ideas / communications. Im sure our government has secret plans to bomb Moscow resulting in millions of deaths, theres a big difference between a plot / plan and actions. Also im sorry but the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a sovereign state, EVERYTHING within its borders are the responsibility of the UK government. We can totally redraw our internal borders tomorrow morning, its not illegal. For 300 years the North Sea has been defended by the British armed forces. More English men have died fighting for this country than Scottish, Welsh and Irish combined. I know you separatists care alot about oil, but it really isnt the most important resource thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say BW, some of your comments make me smile. Like this one "More English men have died fighting for this country than Scottish, Welsh and Irish combined". Not really a surprise is it considering the much larger population of England, ten times the population of Scotland. I have been looking for statistics I spotted a few years ago which stated that Scottish losses during world war one where percentage wise far larger than England's. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was so you will have to take my word for it, or not as the case may be. As for your comment that oil is not that important. Do I have to try and repudiate that? I don't think I'll bother. :) Jack forbes (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

So its not a surprise that more English blood has been spilt for the defense of this United Kingdom because England has by far the biggest population which is ofcourse obvious and understandable. Yet a big deal is made by separatists about English MPs having by far the most seats in parliament (Despite Scottish people being over represented for decades) or the fact most north sea oil revenues come from "Scottish Waters", ofcourse it would as most of the UK oil is in Scotland, just like most of the UKs population is English. Oil or blood, i know which is more important to most people which is why i get offended when oil is obsessed over so much.

As for WW1, I have heard that mentioned before and i do not know why "per capita" more scots died in WW1 than English if thats accurate but ofcourse when it comes to war, numbers of troops matter not statistics and today its balanced and matches population size. Lets also not forget which General was responsible for one of Britains largest military losses in WW1. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

While nobody here denies the number of English killed in England/Britain's numerous wars throughout history, BritishWatcher, you are minimising the thousands of Irish wiped out at the Battle of the Somme (they were placed in the vanguard), then there are the Scots who fought valiantly at Waterloo (and it was a Scotsman who captured the French standard), and finally what about the Welsh and their deadly longbows who helped Henry V defeat a numerically-superior French army at Agincourt? These are but a few examples.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne sorry, i dont seek to dismiss the huge contributions each part of the United Kingdom has made to our history and we shouldnt forget commonwealth / empire sacrifices as well. Im British, i rarely think of myself as English but when Scottish separatists make a big deal about oil, i simply like to remind them that its not just Scottish people who have fought and died to defend "Scottish Waters" the last 300 years and the oil they now seek claim to.

People from Wales, Scotland and indeed Ireland have all played a vital role in our shared history and its something people shouldnt forget. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, I'd look on you the same as my Irish relatives in NI; officially British but having no loyalty to that state whatsoever! And I wish the SNP godspeed:) Sarah777 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No but unpopularity is making governments and map makers redraw the world map. That is the point here and it is covered well in the article itself.MITH 19:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes like the Irish map publishers that have stopped using it in Ireland but continue to use "British Isles" in the rest of Britain. Thats very convincing im sure, it just shows how its certain Irish organisations, people and their supporters pushing the change. Hmm that sounds alot like whats happening here on wikipedia as well. I notice however there has still yet to be an accurate alternative name to British Isles. Britain and Ireland, or Ireland and the UK do not fit this articles description. Anyway maybe in a decades time there will be a valid alternative and then the article can be changed, till then this conversation is a waste of time. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea that the Irish are not British is simply POV. There are many Irish in Northern Ireland who self-identify as both. ðarkun coll 21:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed? the President of Ireland is British born. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How could she be 'British born' when Ireland is not in Britain? Maybe born under British Rule, but certainly not in Britain. Go get thyself to a mapmaker! purple (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The people of Ireland (state) are not British. Period. Nothing to do with "POV". The Prez was unfortunate to be one of those "trapped" folk I referred to. She has zero allegiance to the state she was born in. Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% certain that Mary McAleese does not consider herself British anymore than Gerry Adams does!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet 58% of the population of Northern Ireland do indeed consider themselves to be both British and Irish, so all this talk of the two being mutually exclusive is rubbish. And in answer to Sarah above - I wasn't talking about the state that has appropriated the name "Ireland" even though it only covers part of it - I'm talking about Ireland, the whole thing. ðarkun coll 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

So are the people who regularly edit this article finally beginning to realise that nationality is a complicated invented ideology based upon a series of socio-political developments from the sixteenth-eighteenth centuries which attempted to create a source of legitimation for sovereign power following the collapse of the concept of Christendom and the divine right of monarchs? And that all tales of nationality - be they English, Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, British, Irish or anywhere else - have been invented, created and nurtured through a series of cultural, political and military practices? Next will come the revelation that it is impossible to separate the geographical and political namings of places and that beliefs either for or against certain names are neither wrong nor right, but most commonly based upon learned cultural practices which need to be described on an article such as this and neither supported nor decried? Heaven forebid that this off topic discussion might actually have persuaded a few people that the issue of the names of these islands will never be black and white, will never be resolved, and that rather than endless debates we need to a. accept that the article title will always be imperfect, whether it is at British Isles, North Atlantic Isles, Islands in the (Gulf) Stream or any other name and b. that the best way to make this work is to set out the etymology, confusions and objections to any title in a fair and objective manner? (slight) rant over ;)Pretty Green (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I do agree. The Manual of Modern Geography Mathematical might give some indication of learned cultural practices. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, British means non-English, to someone else British means English. I refer to England and English when i speak of my own, i refer to British and Britons when i speak of the foreigners that live near me, simple as, just because some people see those terms as synonymous doesn't mean they are. 167.1.176.4 (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I am British. It is that simple. I always have to explain it to Americans thusly... Are you Californian or American, because its the same as saying that your Scottish or British. This conversation is just as if Canada or Mexico wanted to rename the continent North America because it may imply that it is a pert of the USA. Heck I wonder if Venezuela is campaigning to change South America to something different?

As for language it is interesting to know that the UK has very few regional languages. If one looks at France in 1880, 80% of French people could not read, write or speak French. Most of the population spoke regional languages such as Occitan, Breton, Franco-Provençal, Basque, or the West Flemish dialect of Dutch. There were at least 50 dialects and 100 sub-dialects. (fact from QI) -- Phoenix (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix, you cannot compare British to American as California, Texas, etc. were never sovereign nations. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly do not know if that was being humorous or not but they were independent countries (Republic of California Republic of Texas). But that was not my main point. Its a comparison of a Supra-national verses a national identity...

Are you British or are you European.. If your from the UK and unless your being cheeky the answer is YES to both.
If someone is from Munich are you a München? Bavarian? or German? They answer is Yes to all 3.
If your from Monaco are you Monacian, French or European... The answer is Monacian (if that word exists) and European since Monaco is not a part of France.

Its a simple Top Down Statement. British is EXACTLY the same as being called American, and English is EXACTLY the same as being called Californian, as neither England nor California are independent sovereign states, only the USA or the UK have that qualification. You would not call a Canadian an American; so I would not call someone whose Irish, British unless they are from NI and saw themselves that way. Simple logistics. -- Phoenix (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here Phoenix. I don't think anyone is really claiming that the Irish (at least those in the Republic) are British. They are Irish and European to use your analogy, not Irish, British and European. The problem here is whether they live in the British Isles or whether that group of islands has another acceptable name. Incidentally, the term you were grasping for that applies to someone from Monaco is Monégasque. Skinsmoke (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm responding to these statements Any time somebody says 'British', I just think 'English' .... For many people (not all) it is becoming just another name for English.... British means non-English, to someone else British means English... Thanks for the help about the Monégasque people, it was actually bugging me... Now I need to figure out how to pronounce it... -- Phoenix (talk) 02:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. If you can manage Feen-ix I'm sure you can manage Mon-eh-gask. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Top 10 travel faux pas (according to a British newspaper)

And No.3 is "Referring to Ireland as one of 'the British Isles'": http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2007/oct/15/top10.culturaltrips Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well thankyou for that, im sure you take such articles very seriously. Oh look the same paper recently had an article about an oil spill heading towards the "British Isles" and its clearly not just talking about the UK as its mostly about Irish authorities.:http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/18/pollution-oilspills . That newspaper is also the one that reported the pathetic and political move of the Irish map publisher, so i think they know what the British Isles are thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So can we take it that you resent that they reported that news story? How dare they report such things. Then again, when they were only one media outlet of many (the Irish Times being the first) to report that story, one wonders do you simply wish to censor every media report which doesn't fit your ideology. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because something is a faux pas doesn't mean it's not true though. It's a faux pas to call someone an idiot, even if it's true (not implying anything to any members of the board, just an example.) It's a faux pas to comment on the Royal Family's German heritage, even though it's still true. It's a faux pas to point out the mistakes of a superior at work in public, even though it's true. Faux pas has nothing to do with facts. Canterbury Tail talk 13:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when did mentioning the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha name of the Windsor family become a faux pas? And don't worry, I don't think BritishWatcher or MidnightBlue would be offended at any personal insult. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, (the island of) Ireland is one of the British Isles, so the idiot who wrote that load of rubbish doesn't know what he's talking about. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, an awful lot of people disagree with you, many if not most of whom are Irish and live in Ireland. There are, additionally, very many sources which refer to "the British Isles and Ireland" so it makes one wonder about why certain editors here are so keen to assert that there is no dispute about what constitutes this "British Isles" entity (if it can be called that) when there clearly is a great deal of dispute about it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are people quoting the Guardian, which is British paper, in an attempt to validate the term British Isles? It misses the whole point of the debate. Similarly, many Irish and American papers can be quoted to “prove” the opposite. We know that British people use the term. But news flash to “British Watcher” and Midnight Blue , “Like it or not” Britain doesn’t rule the world! The very fact that you two are participating on this board should give you some indication that the term is disputed! Most people in Ireland, and many people throughout the world know that Ireland is not part of the British Isles.

I’d also like to appeal to MidnightBlue to try and make a more valuable contribution than just saying that anyone who disagrees with him is an “idiot”. You believe the term to be correct because your country uses it. That doesn’t mean that other countries like Ireland will accept it. If the Irish Government decided to officially name the Islands the “Irish Isles”, I’m pretty sure the British wouldn’t accept that.

The “British Isles” is an outdated and disputed term that no longer accurately reflects the geographical region it refers to. It has already been dropped by a number of Atlas’ and Encyclopaedias.Even The National Geographic has stopped using the term http://www.tribune.ie/archive/article/2008/jan/27/british-isles-references-leave-irish-eyes-frowning/

It is certainly declining in use. I look forward to the day when Wikipedia catches up with the times, and stops being held to ransom by a few right-wing editors who are struggling to come to terms with modern world.Rondolfus (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that this whole article is a lie. Unfortunately for you it isn't. As to whether Ireland accepts the term or not, I'm not particularly interested myself. It's good enough for me that the rest of the world accepts it and doesn't have a problem with it. I guess most Irish people don't have a problem with it either. It's just those that do, make a big song and dance about it, mainly on this page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually National Geographic has not dropped it's use, and that reference makes no such claims either. It changed an advert it was running. Check on their site and in the magazine, the term is still very much alive and well. Canterbury Tail talk 19:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

According to The Sunday Tribune article cited in this article, National Geographic has dropped use of the term in all *future* maps: "The Sunday Tribune has learned that on 23 January, Fahey replied to McManus informing him that National Geographic had "revised" the way it referred to Ireland in its online information and would make similar changes in future print editions. It will now refer to 'the British and Irish Isles'." If there are still references to the "British Isles" on its site they clearly must pre-date the policy change in 2008. 86.44.36.57 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Try searching the National Geographic website. You'll find 309 hits for "British Isles" and one hit for "British and Irish Isles". MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that the term British Isles is mostly used by 'pro-Union Scots', and less used by the Welsh and the English. It's more a kind of a mantra, or affirmation, to instill a measure of confidence in the future of the Union. I looked around Google, and it's 98% British websites using the term. Wikipedia should have a 'policy statement' on the use of the term, as it is not common at all. purple (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well MidnightBlue, your guess is wrong. Most Irish people do in fact have a problem with the term , which is why the Irish Government, which is democratically elected by the Irish people , reflects the wishes of the majority by not recognising it. Of Course if you search the National Geographic Website you will find more results for “British Isles” as they only revised their policy last year! They are hardly going to alter all articles that pre-date this decision.

Canterbury Tail: Please read the article that is sourced. It is quite clear. The National Geographic no longer uses the term “British Isles” in relation to Ireland. That may disappoint you, but it is a fact! Hmmm wonder which has more credibility, “National Geographic” or Wikipedia??!! LOL I am struggling to understand how you can read a perfectly simple article and overlook the obvious truths in it.

PLease note that National Geographic has not changed the way it refers to Ireland and still uses the term British Isles, something easily sourced from the magazine and online site. Canterbury Tail talk 11:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The term “British Isles” is on its lasts legs. Kept alive by a few “nostalgic” Anglophiles, who can’t help but make a “song and dance” about it. I agree with “purple” Wikipedia needs a “policy statement” about its use. In light of National Geographic decision to exclude Ireland from the term, I suggest Wikipedia seriously considers this proposal.Rondolfus (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

That's purely your opinion, and the facts would suggest otherwise. waggers (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: “PLease note that National Geographic has not changed the way it refers to Ireland and still uses the term British Isles, something easily sourced from the magazine and online site.” If it is so easily sourced why don’t you source it instead of spouting unreferenced nonsesne. You typify the problem with Wikipedia. Its infested with blinkered “pesudo-intelectuals” each with their own agenda. I have given you an article that states that any National Geographic arcticles printed post Jan 27 2008, will not use the term British Isles in relation to Ireland. I challenge you to show me one arcticle published SINCE then that contradicts this fact!

By the way if you search “Palestine” on National Geographic Site you will get over 1500 results. This doesn’t mean they currently use the term Palestine to describe Israel and the Occupied Territories. Indeed the change in political circumstances in the Middle East in 1948, made the Geographical Term “Palestine” redundant. Similarly political changes in Ireland has made the term “British Isles” redundant. Despite what Canterbury Tail is trying to force down our throats, the National Geographic have not used the term “British Isles” in relation to Ireland since Jan 2008!Rondolfus (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly comparing it to Palestine isn't the same thing. You're saying British Isles isn't an acceptable term anymore, therefore shouldn't be used. Palestine was a state that no longer exists, but did historically, not the same thing. Either British Isles includes Ireland, or it doesn't, you can't historically retcon it to change its meaning.

Secondly the news story you reference does not say that National Geographic will remove all use of the term British Isles from all articles, in fact it refers to an advertising campaign they were doing at the time. Also note the article makes no reference to the context of the quoted words. All the discussion in that article is in reference to National Geographic's travel guide, not National Geographic itself.

As for sources, all from post Jan 2008. 1. 2 just one page of hundreds on the main site that uses, currently, the phrase British Isles to advertise a photo gallery on Castles as a current feature they are promoting. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 (curiously detailing a Celtic event. Sorry got bored after that.

Oh and finally, please edit your above text to remove the personal attack against me and the implications that I have an agenda, other than continued accuracy of a neutral encyclopaedia that represents a global view, and not that of a vocal minority. Canterbury Tail talk 13:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, forget NG, we could play this Googling all week, and 'never reach a conclusion'. I just Googled the British government's websit at www.gov.uk and they distinctly avoid the term. So if the British government is not using the term, it indeed must be on the way out, see here [4]. purple (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And American government website= "zero" [5]. purple (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would the British government use it, they have no reason to use a geographic term when they don't run large areas included in that geographic term. It's not used as a political term (and shouldn't be), so why would they need to refer to it as such? As stated before, it's geographical not political. BTW, Number10.gov.uk uses it quite extensively. Also in some use by the US State Department. Point here is, it's a term, used over the globe, the most common geographic term for the geographic isles, not a British term, also used in Ireland and by many other countries. Some on here seem to think it's solely a British term and that any decline in use means it's not used, but it can be clearly shown, and has been, that it's still a very commonly used term and even used in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: Once again your contribution proves nothing. Few of your sources provide dates. Some are not even articles, and one is a book review! One of your sources (Number 5) details a journalists trip around the UK, the term British Isles is used, but Ireland is not mentioned once throughout the article! This actually supports my claim that National Geographic no longer links Ireland with the term. Thanks for that. Your “Celtic Event” article details a Scottish tradition, uses the term British Isles, but also mentions Brittany (Which I’m sure you know, is in France). Again there is no solid connection between the Term British isles and Ireland. You are simply filling in the gaps with your own ideas. The rest of your chosen sources are similarly vague.

As for Palestine, its extremely relevant. “Palestine was a state that no longer exists”, similarly the “British Isles” no longer exists (in relation to Ireland) because of a change in political circumstances. Ireland, has for some time, been a completely independent nation. Its not even part of the commonwealth! There is more of an argument to call Canada “British” than there is Ireland, when you take into account the countries traditions and political links.

I would also like to thank you for giving me the biggest laugh I have had in years by stating that your only agenda is to maintain the “accuracy of a neutral encyclopaedia that represents a global view.” Wikipedia is to Encyclopaedias , what the Big Mac is to Gourmet Cuisine. Its infested with people , who have struggled to make it in a professional academic enviroment. To compensate for their shortcomings, they like to throw their weight around , editing articles with shamless bias. My only consolation , when I think of these fiction peddlers , is that they are so wrapped up in this online “prank” they don’t have time to pester real people in the real world. I have spent enough time responding to people, who would rather poke their eyes out than open them. Luckily for the world any half decent university won’t accept “Wikipedia” sources as valid references…. Hmmm wonder why that is. Perhaps you should take a look at how you do things here, Canterbury Tail lol lol

(Canterbury , I refrained from personally attacking you in light of your complaint, I have instead used the term people. I cannot be held responsible for any conclusions that people draw) LOL Rondolfus (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you'd care to check the majority of them either have the date on the article page, or in the URL itself (National Geographic is very good at dating it's articles and maintains within it's URL the date of the magazine it appeared in.) The majority of those references appeared in the print version of the relevant magazine dates. You contended that NG removed all references to British Isles, this has been proven false. As for not mentioning Ireland, why would something have to mention Ireland when it uses the term British Isles, it's unnecessary? And you have just admitted that you believe at least it included Ireland in the past (and short of drastic plate tectonics things don't tend to leave geographical areas under their own power), therefore since it's geographic there is no reason to change it.

I have to ask the question, on what grounds should British Isles be removed from Wikipedia and no longer used? It is internationally used, proved. It is used in Ireland, proved. On what basis should it be removed? This is the fundamental question here. Now remember this article, and Wikipedia exists to put forward information in a neutral manner. Not to put our opinions on the point, not to make decisions on what the world should think, not to come up with new terms that we believe the world should use, but to put forward information in a neutral and verifiable manner. So on what basis should Wikipedia stop using it, and or remove it? Canterbury Tail talk 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you say the term is used in Ireland. “Proved”! Actually the term is officially discouraged in Ireland. Proved! Speaking as someone who lives in Ireland , I can assure you the term is extremely rare here. Besides, just because some people use a term doesn’t mean it should be adopted into the academic environment. Many racists throughout the world use terms such as “Nigger”, we don’t incorporate it into modern society on that basis. We discourage it and so we should!

Secondly, the term is never used in the Irish media and very rarely used in the British media. Both prefer to use the term “UK and Ireland.” Sky News, BBC, RTE, TV3, all use the term “UK and Ireland” when reporting on the weather etc. This is because “British Isles” is a politically charged term. Considering the brutal oppression suffered by Ireland at the hands of Britain, it is understandable that Irish people have an issue with its use. The term “UK and Ireland” does not offend anybody, however, the term “British Isles” offends many Irish people. Proved! It is primarily (though not entirely) used by a small minority of anti-Irish, British nationalists to antagonise their neighbours.

Furthermore, the aim of any encyclopaedia should be to educate people. The term “British Isles” is misleading. There are numerous examples of the term confusing people because it doesn’t accurately reflect the political realities of the region. Nancy Reagan is perhaps the best example of this, however, it is also a issue in the USA and Canada where a significant number of people are also mislead by the term.

There should be an article detailing the history of the term “British Isles”, but considering the term “UK and Ireland” is now more common ( and need I say accurate), I take issue with Wikipedia using it as the official name for the region. I would also like to point out that National Geographic, have not stopped using the term, but they have stopped referring to Ireland in its usage. We can sit here searching the Internet for “proof” of our arguments all day. We’ll just be going around in circles. I can only appeal for fairness and common sense.

Canterbury, you seem to believe that “British Isles” is more commonly used than it is. As mentioned numerous times before, the term “UK and Ireland” is far far more common in the modern media and in new publications throughout Ireland and Britain. So in actual fact, Wikipedia is pandering to a minority of people, who are determined to use the term, not for academic reasons, but for political “point scoring” which is all too common with the anti-Irish lobby.Rondolfus (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, RTE doesn't use the term, especially not in relation to Ireland, or in any other manner 1, 2. It's not used by people in Ireland, except when convenient of course, or by former Republic of Ireland football players in interviews. It's even used incredibly commonly by Tourism Ireland, the official tourist body for the island, even in reference to places in the state of Ireland 2, 3, 4.

Yes the point of an encyclopaedia is to educate people. Educate people that the term includes Ireland, and always has, is a geographical term that some people are trying to make political, and is spoken against by a vocal, but unquantified number. UK and Ireland can't work as you're using two political states to try and map to a geographic area, and they don't even cover the same area. UK and Ireland <> British Isles.

There are people who do not like the term, proven. There are people who want to get rid of the term altogether, proven. There are a number of people who find the term offensive, proven but completely unquantified. There are a number of people who don't use the term, proven but completely unquantified. The number of people who don't use the term, dislike the term and want it abolished could be 20, could be a million, we don't know it is a completely unknown number. We can prove the use of the term, even still used in Ireland much more heavily than some people like to admit (especially when convenient such as oldest in, longest in, best in etc), but we cannot show the quantities that don't use it. The fact is it is a heavily used term, not just in the British Isles but worldwide and this is, and has been, proven and shown way beyond what is actually necessary for verifiability purposes. To date no one has shown other than a couple of news stories and some blog postings that the term is vehemently opposed in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rondolfus's statement above that "...BBC... use the term “UK and Ireland” when reporting on the weather etc." is not absolutely true: see [6] - "Forecast video" section and "Maps". Bazza (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I see we are back to the same crap again with certain people pushing their point of view trying to claim that British Isles is no longer used. This is total crap, the BBC use it every single day on the weatherforcast as pointed out by Bazza. Its also simply incorrect to say the term "UK and Ireland" is more accurate, it leaves out parts of the British Isles which are not in the United Kingedom and not in the Republic of Ireland. The articles name is not going to be changed, a few opinionated editors are not going to have the definition of the term changed, so i dont know why they continue to bother. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody disputes the term is used. The fact is , other terms are used as often ,if not, more often than the “British Isles.” But for someone reason Wikipedia ignores them. The term “United Kingdom and Ireland” is used, and I agree with British Watcher, its not entirely accurate, but neither is “British Isles.” If the term United Kingdom of Ireland leaves out parts of the region not in the UK or Ireland, than the term British Isles leaves out Ireland.

The fact is “British Isles” is not used by everybody so why can’t this be reflected in the article?

All you would have to say is “The “British Isles” is a term sometimes used to describe the Geographical region of X,Y and Z.”

That slight change would solve a lot of problems. Canterbury you have sourced a few articles that show Irish people using the term. Likewise I could source British sites using the term “Britain and Ireland” or “UK and Ireland”, this is not really going to get us anywhere.

Considering the term is not universally accepted, considering it is contentious, considering not all publications or Broadcasters use it, I suggest the line

“ is a term sometimes used to describe…” is added to the beginning of the article.

This is factual, would maintain the integrity of the article, while satisfying the disputing parties on this board. If wikipedia is truly neutral I think it should accommodate this minor alteration.Rondolfus (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish, you are simply POV pushing and trying to cause trouble. IM sorry but there is no term used more to describe what this article is about than "British Isles". "UK and Ireland" or "Britain and Ireland" do not include the other islands of the British Isles. This article goes out of its way to point out that the term is controverisal and that other words are used, its in the damn introduction. There is a whole article on the naming dispute.

Please explain why if the term is no longer used by most people the Irish map publisher that was bullied for political reasons to stop using the term in the maps they print for Ireland continue to use British Isles for maps in Britain? Surely theyd of stopped both if the term was now no longer used? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Britishwatcher: I’ll try to make this simple for you because you obviously missed the whole point! I never said the term was not used! I said it was not used by everybody! Its used by many British people, hence Folens made a business decision to keep the map names in Britain. They dropped it in Ireland, because people in Ireland don’t tend to use the term! That’s not point of view. That’s fact, as sourced in the main article!

Saying that it is a term that is SOMETIMES used is therefore fact, not point of view. There is a list of publishers on the page that have altered how they use the term. By the way its your “point of view” that the British Isles is used more than any other term! You can’t possibly prove that. It’s my point of view that it is used far less. Likewise I can’t prove that. However, it is quite clear that not everybody uses the term. I think even you would agree with that. The fact that wikipedia states “British isles ARE a group of islands” shows bias. It should read is a “term sometimes used to describe.” That’s not “point of view” that’s called being neutral. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I think somebody with the name BritishWatcher with a giant Union Jack on his profile, may have a conflict of interests here. Rondolfus (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rondolfus (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference, and no verifiable source to show that any term is more used than British Isles for the area of the British Isles. UK and Ireland, Britain and Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland are not the same thing and don't cover the same area. There is no other term in wide use for the British Isles. The British Isles is the only widely used term for the area, as used by Irish broadcasters, Irish people, map makers, international publishers, international organisations and the people of the area themselves. All objections to the term are already in the article, but unless you have a verifiable source to the contrary, British Isles is the most common term for the area encompassed by it. Canterbury Tail talk 14:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Canterbury: I admire your determination, despite the overwhelming evidence that the term is rarely used in Ireland you continue to push through your own point of view that it is widely used! Amazing. A few google searches prove nothing. I could prove the pope is a scientologist if I googled enough. Your refusal to acknowledge basic facts in the quest for “neutrality” has left me with no alternative but to report this article , and the numerous editors for gross bias. I am also sickened by the subtle anti-Irish racism that has been tolerated and indeed encouraged by various participants on this board. I once accused you of having an agenda. I have copied our correspondence and will send it as part of my report. I’ll let others decide if you do indeed have an agenda.

I have already began plans to write an article for major Irish paper, encouraging people to boycott Wikipedia and stop donations until action is taken against the right ring racist editors that plague this site. The Irish, Jews, and Arabs have all been subject to racism of some sort and it should not be tolerated. You refuse to be “neutral”??? That’s fine. We’ll see what other people think. You have no idea, this matter has only just started!Rondolfus (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

What overwhelming evidence? None has been provided that proves it's rarely used, and in fact a lot of evidence to show it is widely used. You need to provide evidence that it is rarely used, verifiable evidence. No such evidence has appeared. A newspaper story saying the government discourages it's use isn't evidence that it's not used. It's been shown to be widely used. Governments discourage cannabis use, doesn't stop it being widely used. I'm not refusing to be neutral, I'm going with the evidence. I have no personal stake in this other than the encyclopaedia. If you can provide verifiable overwhelming evidence that it is not used in Ireland (despite evidence to the contrary), then fine it can go in, changes can be made and things can be altered. However until such a day happens the article will stay in it's current state, with the objections opposition from some people clearly stated in the article and given appropriate (some would say undue) weight. Oh and if you're planning on reporting editors for "gross bias", feel free to go on ahead. In the meantime, I'm off to the British Isles show. Canterbury Tail talk 15:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to go door-to-door throughout the island of Ireland, to get support/oppose opinons on the term British Isles. PS: Did ya'll know, I'm just as powerful as the Pope. I just don't have as many people believing it. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, I believe you are the Pope for the simple reason that you've got no ass which is why you're the Pope.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Lmao Rondolfus, please write that letter and give us a link when its done so we can read it. How pathetic and desperate can someone get. There is overwhelming evidence that the British Isles continues to be used, im sorry you cant accept that.

GoodDay, perhaps the term is sooo offensive in Ireland all the people who have tried to go door to door and ask people ended up dead. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in Dublin, the only time someone ever knocked on my door was a guy from Mayo selling sponges. I didn't shoot him, nor did I purchase any of his sponges.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someday, they'll be a trade off. Britain & Ireland will be called the Irish Isles & the Sea between them, the British Sea. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My Bonnie lies over the ocean, my Bonnie lies over the sea......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Don’t worry BritishWatcher, you’ll probably get to read it in the paper. It gets sold in the North of Ireland too. I assume you’re from the North of Ireland, because your ultra loyalist posturing is quite similar to that of the planters. You know, the psychological need to exert their “loyalty” and prove their, how can I say it, “UKness”… LOL if you are from the 6 counties, shouldn’t you be called UKwatcher because, as I am sure you know, the 6 counties are not part of Britain. Or perhaps you are from the six counties, and your watching Britain from afar! Either way, I have had enough talking to you. You’re a VERY funny guy and I’m sure you have loads of "loyal" friends. What a shame we’ll never meet. Oh dear what a pity never mind.Rondolfus (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I thought I was the funny guy? GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah you're just the disagreeing sidekick who gets killed by the bad guy to emphasise how dangerous the forest is. Sorry. Canterbury Tail talk 15:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Have no fear GoodDay, nobody is going to usurp you as the King of Comedy. Your crown is safely glued to your head. Trust me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No i am not from Northern Ireland, although plenty of people there identify and consider themselves British so they could have "British" in their name just as much as i can, they are also British citizens :). GoodDay, most of the comments on this page are funny because it becomes a complete joke with all the silly points raised by people trying to change this article BritishWatcher (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

All joking aside, this discussion has taken a nasty turn. Saying that another editor is going to get killed is neither funny nor appropriate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Canterbury, thanks for sourcing that “British Isles Show” thing, you have totally managed to win me over. Forget newspapers and encyclopaedias, Wikipedia sources information from a backwater fair in Canada. LOL You have proven my point. I agree with Britishwatcher completely the article is a total farce. Rondolfus (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that was a joke. However in Canada people do consider themselves as having come from the British Isles, the Irish and the British alike. It's actually very common according to my research. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rondolfus, it's "Northern Ireland", not "the North of Ireland". If you think Wikipedia is so bad why don't you go elsewhere? This article name is not going to change, so stop pushing your Irish nationalist POV. Furthermore, the debate about "British Isles is a term" has been done to death and it's long since been agreed that it won't be used. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well Midnight Blue, many people (including myself) weren’t involved in your little debate. Sorry to disappoint you but the issue is not over. A little group of editors on Wikipedia can’t conclude on issue for ever more. That’s the nature of life, there are people born today that may challenge this issue in 20 years and they have a right to. Just because your finished with it, doesn’t mean the entire human race will never debate the issue again!

“pushing your Irish nationalist POV”, unforunatley for you my “Irish nationalist point of view” is just as valid as your “Right Wing British POV”. All I am calling for is a bit of balance between the two. It seems the article is dominated by “Right Wing British POV”, whether its hardcore BNP members or members of certain Common Wealth countries who harbour a romantasised view of Britain. Eitherway I’m not going to stop opposing the use of this outdated and inaccurate TERM. As I said before, I have reported the arcticle for its obvious bias. The debate will continue and there is absolutley nothing you can do about it.Rondolfus (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen where you've reported the article. If you have opened a discussion point on it you need to refer everyone else to it so a proper investigation can be organized. Canterbury Tail talk 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rondolfus in what he writes. Many false arguments are used to make the term sacrosanct, including "Appeal To False Authority", "Argument By Selective Observation", "Argument By Half Truth", "Argument By Selective Reading", "Argument From Small Numbers", "Misunderstanding The Nature Of Statistics", "Moving The Goalposts ", "Reductio Ad Absurdum". Nobody is saying that the term does not exist, but what some are saying is, that it is not the most common term used for the group. Although I have heard 'UK and Ireland' to politically describe the two countries, I mostly hear "Britain and Ireland" being used. Canterbury uses Googling to "prove" his point, but one can "prove" the Earth is flat by using Google, or so I'm told. And where is the term 'British isles' most popular, in the IOM would you believe? purple (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it's hardly surprising it's most popular in the Isle of Man is it? The alternatives suggested of UK and Ireland or Britain and Irlend don't include the Isle of Man. But hey, to hell with it. Sod Manx Nationalists, Irish Nationalists have a much more important point of view, don't they? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So do we actually know BI to be the "most popular" in the IOM or is that just yet another unproved claim 'round these parts? And what Manx Nationalism has to do with "British Isles" I'm not clear. One would think "Isle of Man" would be good enough for Manx nationalists. Nationalists aside, why the concept "Britain" would be so excluding of the Manx when somehow its very adjective form "British" is embraced and inclusive doesn't seem all that logical either--but what do I know??... I can at least guarantee you there are far more non-British Irish people than "Britain"-rejecting Manx, so, at the very least, B&I would be more inclusive if not perfectly so. Not that I'm advocating a page move/name change, mind you. A girl can dream, though, no? Of course, if the Manx feel so invited and included in 'British' than I suppose there's nothing for it but "British-Irish Isles"! :-) Nuclare (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to ask User:Purple Arrow to justify that claim about British Isles being most popular in the Isle of Man as it was his claim.

I know it's late, but you are missing the point about the Isle of Man. It is not surprising that the Manx don't object to the term British Isles as they feel they are included in that name. They do not feel included in Britain and Ireland (and certainly not in United Kingdom and Ireland) because they are not part of Britain (or the United Kingdom). It may be hard for some Irish to understand, given the political history of Ireland and its fight for independence, that not everyone understands the word British in British Isles as meaning that the islands belong to Britain.

Your argument that there are more Irish than Manx, therefore the Irish view should prevail, doesn't really work. This whole argument stems from the fact that the Irish are objecting to the term being used on the grounds that the minority view should be respected rather than the majority view (there have been numerous gripes about British editors outnumbering Irish editors). You can't really expect to get away with arguing exactly the opposite line when the Irish are the majority and the Manx are the minority.

If the term British-Irish Isles were to become widely used I would be the first to agree with retitling the article to that. So far it hasn't though, and nor has anyone managed to come up with an alternative name that is widely used and means the same thing. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"It is not surprising that the Manx don't object to the term British Isles as they feel they are included in that name. They do not feel included in "Britain and Ireland"... because they are not part of "Britain"" I go back to my first question: what do we know about the Manx opinion toward "BI"? Do you know Manx opinion toward Irish objections to BI? Do you know that the Manx feel toward "Britain and Ireland" the same way many Irish feel toward "British Isles"? and, btw, what is "Britain" that one can definitively say that IOM isn't included in "Britain" conceptually? "Britain" gets used so broadly to mean anything British when the context demands it, does "Britain and Ireland" have to be seen as exclusive of Man? This is a genuine question: do you know that the Manx object to this usage?

"...that not everyone understands the word British in British Isles as meaning that the islands belong to Britain." But "belongs to" isn't even the point. Even with an understanding that the term "British" in "BI" doesn't mean "belongs to" Britain, Irish objections would still be there. British implies British. That is all it needs to imply for non-British people to object to it.

"Your argument that there are more Irish than Manx, therefore the Irish view should prevail" That wasn't really an "argument" and that's not exactly what I said. I didn't say anything about Irish views prevailing. I was simply saying that on a continuum of imperfect names 'Britain and Ireland' does come closer to inclusivity. Nuclare (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(FYI. The responses got out of order here. Below comments of Canterbury Tale are a response to, I believe, Purple's last remarks higher up the board) Nuclare (talk) 07:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if it's not the most common term then fair enough. Show us a reliable source that says otherwise and it can go in. This has never been the point of the dispute, but people argue against it and don't provide evidence that there is a more common term for the area encompassed by the British Isles. Reliable source and we can forget this whole thing and get rid of the term. That's all anyone wants. Thing is we see lots of complaints that it's not used, and isn't the most common term, but never any evidence to support that side of the discussion. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, so if you can produce a reliable source then go for it.

However, bear in mind, "UK and Ireland" is a political term and not equal to British Isles, and neither is "Britain and Ireland" (sometimes a geographical term, sometimes used to refer to the governments of the states in the area) as the don't cover the same area.

I have no personal attachment to the term, and will quite happily change it if something else comes up, but have never seen any evidence of another more popular term for the area. Canterbury Tail talk 19:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

We go round and round in circles on this article :\. As has been said over and over again, you are simply incorrect to say there is a more common term than British Isles. UK and Ireland or Ireland and Britain doesnt include all the smaller islands which are accepted by reliable sources to be part of the British Isles. Im sorry but until the BBC which is a huge source for wikipedia refuse to use the term or change their manual of style which clearly defines the British Isles i see no reason for a change. Nothing highlights the fact that theres no single more common term than the previous two Requested move attempts, started and supported by the same person yet for two different terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote "UK and Ireland or Ireland and Britain doesn't include all the smaller islands"; but that is "Reductio Ad Absurdum". We don't have to say "France and its isles" to include every bit of France, or "Iceland and its isles" to include all theparts of Iceland. And how about Canada and all those huge islands in its domain, there is no special wrestling with that situation. In Ireland if you are on the Aran Islands, you are still in Ireland. Same with Isle of Wight, one is still in Britain, and maybe even a guest of the British queen. purple (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

But you're not including the Isle of Man in there. Nor the Channel Islands. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To say IOM is separate from British ownership is a stretch, de jure it is not, but de facto it certainly is. And is it not a certainty whether the Channel Islands are included. The Faroe Islands were formed at the same time as the said 'archipelago', but they are excluded for political reasons alone. I do understand many of your points, and the other editors' points too, "for truth is many sided", an old Indian proverb. That the term started out in life as a political 'idyll', there is little doubt. An encyclopedia is to give all the facts, and hopefully WP will aspire to that end. purple (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the Isle of Man IS separate from British ownership. It may be a British territory, but it has complete home rule and the United Kingdom government cannot legislate for the island. Even changes required by the European Convention on Human Rights could only be achieved by persuasion (and the odd threat that the United Kingdom would no longer legally defend Manx human rights violations). Skinsmoke (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

And the article does give all these facts, mentions and goes into detail on the dispute over the name and usage. Canterbury Tail talk 20:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's your side of the "truth". My "truth" is that the article is a "fork", and should be about a dozen lines in length. I also believe that the other well used term "Britain and Ireland", too should have its dozen lines. To me, that would then be truly NPOV. It has been a six-year struggle to get another popular term for the area included in the article, and I can only say "why?". And to deny that the article is naturally problematic because of the political implications is another spin. purple (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I may be simple, but all of this discussion could surely be resolved if, instead of starting the article with "The British Isles are..." it started with "The British Isles is a term used for..." I've used the term all my life without thinking it implied "ownership" - but clearly others have a different view, and the term is undeniably contentious. I'm now starting to question the neutrality of those who oppose such a change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This would not resolve anything. The argument against describing British Isles as a term went something along the lines of every description is a term, so we don't need to clarify the obvious. For example, we don't say the Iberian peninsula is a term, so why single out the British Isles for this treatment. The Earth is a term for the third planet from the Sun - no, it's plain stupid, as it would be for British Isles. Such usage may go a small way to appease the more voiciferous elements of the Irish nationalist contingent here at Wikipedia, but that's not the purpose of the article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"...why single out the British Isles for this treatment" - because it is contentious, and not accepted as neutral. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well and succinctly said, Ghmyrtle. Thank you. 78.16.98.209 (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly oppose starting the article off "THe British Isles is a term..." . Its an unacceptable change and it will not silence the Irish nationalists who seem to think the British Isles isnt used very often. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not well said, just betraying a lack of understanding. What on earth has the contentious nature, or otherwise, of British Isles usage got to do with this? Absolutely nothing! The Falkland Islands is a contentious description in Argentina of the islands they call Malvinas, so should we commence the Falkland Islands article by referring to the description as a "term", of course not. The whole suggestion is quite ludicrous. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlue's comments that such a mild suggestion is "plain stupid" and "quite ludicrous" do suggest, to me, a lack of interest in improving the article by finding greater consensus. Regarding the "Falkland Islands" - now you mention it, yes, in my view we should change the wording there as well as that is also contentious. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the first version of this article (in October 2001) had precisely that wording, "the British Isles is a term"; it is other people who have unjustifiably changed it to imply that "British Isles" is the sole term. Check the article history yourselves. 86.44.34.19 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Plan B

How about adding a dablink to the beginning of the article:-

This article is about the archipelago consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. For the various geographical and political terminology relating to the states, islands, countries and nations of the British Isles, see Terminology of the British Isles. For the disagreement and different views on using the term 'British Isles', particularly in relation to Ireland, see British Isles naming dispute.

This would give greater clarity for readers - I'm not suggesting in any way it would end the dispute. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It will not resolve anything, but i would support a link to the Terminology of the British Isles article at the top perhaps instead of mentioning British Islands. I oppose adding "For the disagreement and different views on using the term 'British Isles', particularly in relation to Ireland, see British Isles naming dispute." The introduction of the article links to the naming dispute and explains the situation, we do not need to repeat it. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK - so what do people think about adding:

This article is about the archipelago consisting of the islands of Great Britain, Ireland and many smaller surrounding islands. For the various geographical and political terminology relating to the states, islands, countries and nations of the archipelago, see Terminology of the British Isles.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

One more try ...

The British Isles is the historical designation of the archipelogo containing the Island of Great Britain, the Island of Ireland and its Adjacent Islands. The archipelago is the historical home of the peoples known as the English, Welsh, Scottish, and Irish, historically refered to collectively as the British. At present, the archipelogo is shared by two Sovereign States, one baring the Name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the other being legally described, since 1948, as the Republic of Ireland.

How is that? Does my word-smithing "make-the-muster" ...?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the term British has never been applied collectively or otherwise to the Irish, it represents no improvement on the current version which was agreed after long discussion. --Snowded (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

The British are collectively the English, Welsh, Scottish and the Irish. The Irish since December 9, 1921 have been sub-divided into the Republican Irish and the Northern Irish.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Where do you get this stuff from? Republican Irish (lol), did they vote for Bush?). Its Britain and Ireland, the only recent anomaly is that people in Northern Ireland are British Citizens. The edit you propsoe is inaccurate and provocative - have you even read any of the past discussions? I suppose the one consolation is that it will be ignored - something I should probably have done. --Snowded (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont like the use of the word historical, it makes it sounds like its no longer used which we all know isnt the case. Such wording is not going to resolve the ongoing conflict and applying British to Irish people is simply going to spark an even bigger argument which we dont need on this article right now. Ofcourse today people in Northern Ireland are British citizens and many of them take great pride in being British, but in the past British and Irish were separate for most people.. even those who supported the United Kingdom. Britain = England, Wales and Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Really bad proposal, on many levels. The most glaring of which, obviously, is that Irish people are not British. (BritishWatcher, it's also not correct to say that Northern Irish are British citizens. They can choose whether to hold Irish citizenship, UK citizenship, or both). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is not "the historical designation of" anything. It is a historical designation which has been used by British people to include Ireland as a possession of Britain. It is, in the words of the foremost authority on early modern Irish history, Nicholas Canny, a "hegemonic locution" designed to assert a British claim over Ireland. 86.44.34.19 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Encyclopedia Britannica says this ...

group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups, including the Hebrides, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Man. Some also include the Channel Islands in this grouping. Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom. See England; Ireland; Northern Ireland; Scotland; United Kingdom; Wales.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Helping you out with formatting again (but you seem determined to avoid using the indenting convention that all other editors follow).. Its good to have the reference again (although it has been used several times) and is an authority for the controversial quote. We can't cut and paste that definition in and if you have a look you will see it has little correspondence with your suggested wording. Still waiting for either evidence or withdrawal of your "British" includes Irish statement. --Snowded (talk) 07:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting ... you are pushy and rude, with a Bachelors and a Masters I see. Well I've got a Bachelors, a Masters, and a Doctorate. Hmmm, I'm the Colonial Barbarian ... with the Ph.D.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got BSc (twice), MSc, MA, PhD, MIMechE, MICE, MInstBiol, MBA, MBCA, MIB, BCN, COP, MiUH, NDEW, ABCD, FGD, RDK, SOD, but unlike some, I don't have a Master of Bullshit. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I never attended university; in point of fact, I am the original colonial barbarian. Can I still edit at Wikipedia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not intellectuelly up to it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye cruel world!!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish govenment usage

Not giving a term any legal status is not the same as discouraging its use. The term has no official status in any country. You won't find it in the Interpretation Act 1978 either, which means that the British government would probably give a similar response. The term Irish Sea has no legal status so should we add that fact to its article? It has been used used by members of the Irish government with no official rebuke given as would be expected if they were actually discouraging its use. As the term has no official status the fact that the London embassy is monitoring the media for abuses of official terms is irrelevant. Eckerslike (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Its hardly irrelevant, it establishes they don't like it --Snowded (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly do you come to that conclusion. The Irish government says that British Isles is not an official term and their embassy said that they are monitoring abuse of official terms. Therefore one of the things they are not monitoring is the use of "British Isles". At no point did anyone in the Irish government say anything about discouraging its use. Eckerslike (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you a contortionist in your spare time? --Snowded (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if your not going to refute my point and just resort to insults I take it you have nothing constructive to say. I'll remove the offending sentence. Eckerslike (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Its difficult to refute that sort of contorted logic. All of those phrases were negotiated some time ago and agreed by a broad majority of editors. You need to get agreement here before you change it. Additional arguments were given on your talk page and there is extensive material in the archives. I commend it to you..--Snowded (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll walk you through this. There are two unrelated statements (the fact they are in the same article is irrelevant)

Statement 1:

Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern stated: "The term 'British Isles' is not used by the Irish government and has no official status . . . the term was not recognised in any legal of intergovernmental sense."

Statement 2:

It was also reported at the time that the Irish Embassy in London had been urged to monitor media in Britain for "any abuse of the official terms as set out in the Constitution of Ireland and in legislation".

This makes it clear that the Irish government does not use the term. It doesn't have any legal recognition and doesn't appear in the Irish constitution or any legislation. As the embassy is only monitoring these types of terms. Their work has nothing to do with the term British Isles. Note that the start of the second statement says It was also reported at the time meaning that these are two completely unrelated statements that the journalist has taken upon himself to link together.

I'm not impressed by the amount of bickering that has gone into coming up with the wording (I've read most of it over the past few years as the talk page always provides amusement). The fact is that the Irish government has never stated that is discourages the use of the term British Isles. That statement is a fabrication by the editors of this article. Eckerslike (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

They are in the same article and they make it pretty clear that the Irish Government discourages use, or at a minimum that it is not accepted as an official term. Using words like "fabrication" is not helpful, but lets see what other editors think, although I wouldn't blame them for bet getting involved. However a QUESTION, under this name your first edit was in January of this year, but you say above that you have been editing for the past few years. OK then, under what names have you previously edited? --Snowded (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh Snowded ... tisk, tisk, tisk. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously trusting the integrity of a journalist? Their job is to put two and two together and come up with sensationalism. The statement from the embassy makes no reference to the British Isles. If there was was any reference to the British Isles in the reports then they would have been used instead of some vague reference to monitoring abuse of official terms. The fact that the Irish government doesn't use the term is rather a dull fact so the journalist decided to spice it up with another comment about the embassy monitoring the media. By combining these two statements together himself he can give the impression they are discouraging its usage. If this article is to gain any credibility it cannot base its content on interpretations by the editors. If the Irish government had discouraged the usage of the term then it would have been reported directly as such rather than vague references to it not being an official term and monitoring abuses of official terms. Eckerslike (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well lets see what other editors say shall we. Now how about answering the question about which names you edited under prior to January of this year? --Snowded (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ... knock-off the "Head-master" attitude. Eckerslike has an identifiable UserName account, and thus can be held-accountable, if need be, for any Wiki-Heresy. I however, like to think that I have "the-corner" on Wiki-Heresy ... been the Heretic Colonial Barbarian, that I am.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I am unhappy with the reference that infers the Irish Government discourages use of the term. As Eckerslike points out, they don't. His argument is solid and the only way to refute it is to find a reference that actually states the Irish Government's position; the present reference doesn't. I suggest we leave the text as it is for three days and if no one has found an adequate reference in that time we remove the statement. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I left my last alias behind a year or so ago because I got tied of the increasing responsibilities and quit editing for a while. I have no desire to go back but created this account so I could occasionally edit without any presumptions that I'll return to my previous level of commitment. Now could you start attacking the argument instead of its editor. Eckerslike (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Its not an attack to ask if you have edited before, especially in an area where there have been multiple (and serial sock puppets). How about telling us the last alias? --Snowded (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

He is not obliged to do so and is perfectly within his rights, and the spirit of Wikipedia, to set up a new account in the way described. I've seen some policy about it somewhere. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course he can refuse, but equally there is no reason why I should not ask and provide an opportunity for him/her to clear up the issue. The "I used to edit under another name but I'm not telling you" has been used before on this (or one related page). --Snowded (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the issue? Would my identity being revealed as Willy on Wheels suddenly invalidate my argument? I'd be happy to have a check user to be run but I haven't been trolling, aggressive or shown any other traits of a disruptive editor. If you suspect me of trying to subvert this article in some way then feel free to report me and I will reveal my previous account in confidence. Eckerslike (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask Eckerslike, where did the name Willy on Wheels suddenly come from? No one else has mentioned that user name. Canterbury Tail talk 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The editing history of everyone else is open, you choose to keep the past silent. Its your choice but I can't see any reason why you should choose that option. Actions as they say speak lounder than words. --Snowded (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a reference in which an Irish embassy spokesman very directly stated they discourage BI's use. What happened to that reference? Nuclare (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article658099.ece> Nuclare (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not allow Irish Government's objection to the BI terms? IMO any complaints in this article about the BI term, is a fair trade-off for allowing the article to be named British Isles. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

All this fuss over this, a bloody on-line quip?

From The Times

October 3, 2006

New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain

By David Sharrock

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article658099.ece

IT MAY be 57 years too late for many an Irish republican, but yesterday Folens, the publishers, said it was introducing a more “correct” version of its school atlas that would no longer include Ireland as part of the British Isles.

The decision, according to The Irish Times, was taken after Mary Hanafin, the Republic’s Education Minister, received a complaint from a parent. She advised the writer to take the matter up with the teacher who was using the “dated” atlas in question, and with the company that published it.

A spokesman for the Irish Embassy in London said: “The British Isles has a dated ring to it, as if we are still part of the Empire. We are independent, we are not part of Britain, not even in geographical terms. We would discourage its useage.”

John O’Connor, managing director of Folens, said that no final decision had yet been taken as to what would replace the British Isles title in the relevant section, but it might be simply Ireland and England — although that would risk the wrath of the Scots and the Welsh.

Bloody Hell.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

PS ... Irish republican is quoted above.

Reputable source, supporting a position we all know is true anyway, Now how many more times do we hae to go around this loop this year? --Snowded (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right, a reputable source, so let's get the reference right. It says the Irish Embassy in Lodon discourages use, not the Irish Government. LemonMonday (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Good change. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Are embassies considered to be autonomous units? News to me. I'd always believed them to be the mouthpiece of their government and directed towards the country that needs telling. . Daicaregos (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That could well be the case, but looking at the reference it only remarks that the Irish Embassy spokesman made the statement, so we can't extrapolate from that. The rerence is now being used accurately. LevenBoy (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair that the comments of an embassy represent the comments of the government unless the government says so. That's all embassy's are for, to represent their government in the country they are in. Canterbury Tail talk 14:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in theory, but we can't make that assumption. The official may have been offering his own opinion. In the absence of the official stating that "It's Irish Government policy etc, etc." all we can report are his exact words. LevenBoy (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this to Irish Embassy because some reverters are not willing to discuss it: revert first, ask questions later type of thing. LemonMonday (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to make silly inane edits to the article, we might as well get it locked-down while we're at it, any admins in the building? purple (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol another lock down? wonderful :| BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Canterbury Tail to protect it, what next? purple (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice you got your preferred version in before requesting protection. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that, it's the Embassy this week, and it will be something else next week, that's why it's better to have consensus here on talk first, otherwise it'll be 'warring and lock-down'. Also, it is worth reading the archives as many of these issues have been discussed here before, and compromise and consensus was the order of the day then, as the should be now. purple (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've not protected it, I don't think the scale is quite warranted yet. However be aware, if this continues the article will get locked again (and there will be people who don't agree with the version that gets locked.) This is a silly point to edit war over, so please discuss it out and come to a consensus as the locking of British Isles is getting silly. Canterbury Tail talk 17:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted, all we know is that the Irish Embassy discourages use of British Isles. Drawing conclusions from that is WP:SYNTHESIS or something similar. Stick to facts. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Rather than protecting the article, how about: the next editor to revert that edit gets blocked for edit warring - unless a discussion here produces consensus. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? If not, please mention whether you support the current text. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the current text - i.e. Irish Embassy .. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just come on line and I'm amazed at the edit war. The default is to return to the position before the conflict so I have done that. The only issue seems to be Embassy v Government, Given that the Embassy speaks for the Government and there are other sources this seems the sort of nonsensical tokenist debate that people love to have. The current wording has a large consensus behind it, lets spend some time talking about it please. If we can't get agreement then we go for review. --Snowded (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If you find this debate nonsensical and tokenist why are you taking part in it? In your view embassy speaks for government but it's been explained above why we can't assume that to be the case. Where are these other sources? Until someone can come up with a reference that categorically states the Irish Government discourages use of British Isles then I'm sorry, but you can't make that claim in the article. Please find a reference. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is so disputed the things mentioned should be backed up by the sources provided. If another source can be found saying the Irish government discourages its use then ofcourse the wording should stay the same, but if its only the Irish Embassy in London, then the article should state that to avoid confusion. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

And that was exactly the situation once the reference was clarified. Then editors who seem hell-bent on applying their own interpretation of the statement moved en-masse against the factual version. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

"The government of Ireland discourages its use." There are four references that are used to support that statement, but not a single one of them actually does. What have we got here? I'm not sure, but I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that it's not an encyclopedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One solution would be to summarise the contents of the source more literally and with less interpretation, e.g. An Irish Embassy spokesman described the term as dated, saying, "We would discourage its useage.". I must say that I find this issue rather strange. If this is the government's position, where is the official statement? If not, why didn't they correct their embassy spokesman? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There is probably no official statement as it possibly isn't a official position with the government of Ireland. The thing with it is, to discourage it's use is to admit it applies to you, otherwise the use isn't an issue. Canterbury Tail talk 18:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I remember this being actively and extensively debated as part of a complex set of agreements on the page between various interest groups. It was a matter of getting some balance in place. I along with other editors resisted attempts to rename the article or denigrate the term at the time and a part of that was recognising that the term was controversial. We now have one of those items being taken up in isolation and the normal sectarian lines being drawn. I am at a loss as to why this attracts so much ire. Embassy's reflect their government policy don't they? If we took every spokesperson's comment from government that is used in wikipedia and required it to be qualified with the name of the spokesperson then it would be a nonsense. It seems what we have here (as on too many articles) is an attempt to reduce in significance or explain away material that doesn't with a particular world view. --Snowded (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

If embassies can't be assumed to represent the view of their governments, then what's the point of having embassies? This debate is inane even by Wikipedia standards. 86.132.224.27 (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur, and the reference does say Embassy spokesman, not Embassy staff or someone who works at the Embassy. Spokesman implies an official comment, and the Embassy represents the government. In just the same way if someone from a company acting as a company spokesman said something. May not be true necessarily, but it carries the same weight as if the organisation itself said it because they are acting officially for, and within, that organisation. Canterbury Tail talk 21:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The quote from the reference doesn't mention the Irish Government. Is there some problem with quoting the reference directly, word for word. What are the arguments for not doing so? LemonMonday Talk 11:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to scratch my head on this one too. We should stick to references and not interpretations. If the references state "embassy", then we shouldn't assume that it is a government position. If it is a government position, where's the references. --HighKing (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using Irish Government in place of Irish Embassy. Mentioning any protestations to the 'British Isles term', is fair trade-off for having the article named 'British Isles'. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What are the arguments for not doing so?? (see question above). LemonMonday Talk 14:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Just an idea (I had). Ouch the coloring of your Username, is sharp on the eyes. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. There should be a law against that colour. Sarah777 (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The colour definitely doesn't suit me. Purple, bottle green, black, silver are more my thing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn: Goth. Daicaregos (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. However, in the summer when I get a tan, I do lose my Gothic look a bit.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the question posed by the yellow dude is not answered satisfactorily I see no alternative but to amend the text to match the reference. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

for the record, here's a 'golden oldie' (1947) source regarding some Irish officials' attitudes to the term 'BI,' for whatever it's worth:

In 1947 Ireland’s Department of External Affairs drafted a letter to the heads of all government departments, which was designed “to prevent the use—not only at International Conferences, but in ordinary Departmental files and correspondence here at home—of expressions which are not in accordance with our external position and may prove embarrassing to us on policy grounds.” These included the use of the term “Dominion—to describe this country; the use of Eire for Ireland, the use of the term British Isles to describe Ireland and Great Britain, of Northern Ireland to describe the six north-eastern counties, and of Government of the United Kingdom where the British Government is meant.” 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.”
The Irish Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland/Ireland: “A Country by Any Other Name”?, Mary E. Daly, Journal of British Studies 46 (January 2007): p 72–90

Nuclare (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite a curious quote though, as many instances of it are completely contradictory to today's stance, such as Eire and Northern Ireland. Also says you can't use Government of the United Kingdom where a confusing term is meant. Canterbury Tail talk 20:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked use of Eire is still considered to be incorrect and quite dated by this stage. I think the Northern Ireland and United Kingdom bits are all pre Good Friday Agreement stuff were both refused to accept each other's names and all that. It's interesting though.MITH 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The oldness of the quote is a problem, I agree. Then again, it does at least prove that the Irish govt has discouraged the term and since the BI part of it doesn't read all that differently to the Irish embassy spokesman's comment 60 years later, it's still pretty interesting. (At the very least it's yet more proof that those who *still* try to claim this as a Wiki editor invented issue are wrong.) On the out-of-date issue, MITH is right about Eire -- it's still out of favor for use in English-language documents. From having read the whole article this is from, my sense of the dislike of "Govt of U.K." is tied up with the lack of acceptance of partition at the time. The full name of "U.K." was/is "U.K. of GB and NI," so to stay away from "NI", one stayed away from U.K. and stuck with "British"/"Great Britain", etc. Nuclare (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You should also read the thread MidnightBlue, you do not have consensus for change, --Snowded (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the good old "no consensus-no change" argument. No matter how diabolically wrong something is, you can't change it without consensus. When was the last time we had a consensus on anything here? By the way, I haven't seen an answer to yellow-belly's question yet. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"diabolically wrong"? I think this is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please read other people's comments and especially the large government quote above.MITH 21:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Would that be the government quote from 62 years ago? Anyway, me and Mr Lemon are still waiting for an answer. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

And Tharkumcol constantly quotes from 3,0000 B.C. Indeed, what a breath of fresh air to get a refreshing 60 year old quote. It's rather new on this archaic page! We're getting a bit modern here, hopefully!! purple (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Got a point there. I still have no objections to Irish government discourages its use. Canterbury Tail talk 11:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing some people have a problem with is the word British. If the Isle were called `Cod Isles` the widely acknowledged, documented British Isles would not face repeated attempts at name change on Wikipedia (which shows what a farce Wikipedia can be). Is the Isle of Man not part of the British Isles, even though it’s not part of the U.K or the E.U.?--Rockybiggs (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very quick, Rocky. It only took you since 2001 to realise that? I'm impressed! And you didn't even have to read an Irish history book going back to 1603 - doubly impressive. Meanwhile I hope some day you'll learn the difference between "widely acknowledged, documented" prejudice and "widely acknowledged, documented" NPOV, and how "British Isles" firmly breaches wikipedia policy pertaining to the latter. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You're being obnoxious DG. Why don't ya take a break from this article, the changes you want for this article, aren't gonna come about by insulting others. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wise words GD. Obviously is another nationalist, yawn :(.. --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reading an editor putting someone down just because of their political affiliation is just as tedious as reading nonsensical rants Rockybiggs. Everyone has their own POV - it's just a question whether one can open up to other peoples enough in order that consensus can be made.MITH 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

^ [7]

[1] [7]

[1]