User talk:Censura

Welcome

Hello, Censura, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers, and some key policies and guidelines:

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

..dave souza, talk 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles question..

Hi Censura, welcome to Wikipedia! I assue that you are 81.158.157.116, thanks for getting a name, its always easier to discuss with named users.

"British Isles" as you probably know is a conentious name for the archipelago in Ireland (not just recently, in fact it has pretty much always been so, regardless of the colour of one's politics). The consensus is to avoid it and use local names on Ireland-related articles. I hope you won't see this as "censorship", but rather as a pragmatic way to avoiding edit-warring and to reflecting local descriptions, while still keeping the information there.

Regards, --sony-youth^pléigh 09:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! That hilarious! Well done! The flip side is that it causes vexation on both sides - one bunch is vexed if its not in, one bunch is vexed if it is. Here's a scenario for you to think about:

We include it. Why? Because "its a fact" and we need "consistancy."
Someone adds a rider along the lines that "although this term is widely rejected in Ireland." Why? Because "its a fact." Do you deny it? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone then changes the Great Britain page to read "Great Britain is the largest island of the British Isles, although this term is widely rejected in Ireland." Why? Because "its a fact" and we need "consistancy."

Is it really worth it?

The letter in the Spectator sounds like someone with a very particular axe to grind. The "facts" are true, but I'd take the interpretation with a pinch of salt. I don't know anyone editing here that's "anti-all-things-British", no more than I'd believe anyone to be a "British imperialists jingo", though these kind of accusation bounce around quite often. Antagonism between the two camps over "facts" can get nasty sometimes and "British Isles" consistently pops up as a flash-point.

Over on the British Isles article we've had months of long, protracted and viscious negeotiations over how and where to mention the "dispute." Whether the term is rejected by "many" or "some" people in Ireland or if it's better to say "often", "sometimes", "frequestly" or something else. Mention of the "despite' was spun out as a seperate page, even though it didn't need to be, so as to keep the main article "clean" of it. The latest is that any other turn-of-phrase except for "British Isles" will be reverted. The "jealously guarded preserves" are not just those of the "politically correct."

I'd ask you, if it is such a neutral and meagre geographic term, why is it so necessary to include it? Why does it arouse such passions on either side? And why would not including it be "anti-all-things-British"? --sony-youth^pléigh 11:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another hello! Hope you don't mind me adding the info box – the policies listed in the right hand column go to the heart of the issue. We aim to give fair and proportionate coverage to all viewpoints, and as you'll appreciate from British Isles naming dispute this is one issue that stirs passions. While the Spectator can be expected to take a political stance, our aim is to show the stances in a neutral way, and a respect for the sensitivities of other readers and editors is part of achieving that balance. It's not always easy!. .. dave souza, talk 15:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dave. The Spectator did not take a stance on Wiki - it was someone who wrote a letter to them. it was a mischievous letter - but I agreed with it 100% ! Wiki looks really silly on things like this and it was a great example of silliness. On the British Isles page the island of Ireland is shown (rightly) as one of the British Isles. On the Ireland page it is apparently not permissible to have a similar statement. There is a hard-working group of Wiki editors who find the use of the word “British” in any connection with Ireland as offensive. Every reference book and Wiki itself acknowledges that Ireland is geographically one of the British Isles. It is mind-blowingly prejudiced to find anything offensive in this. Clearly if we said that Ireland is “British” then those from the ROI would be rightly aggrieved. But this is about geography not politics! I could cite thousands of justifications for my point of view – here’s just one [1] Censura 17:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was once going to cite that map as an example of the non-use of the term. Click on the map for a detailed view - despite clearly showing the "British Isles" (e.g. including the Channel Islands, described as a "British Isles Political Map" by the shop) the legend of the map itself describes it as "Britain and Ireland." In fact, one might say that, "Nowhere in this entry does it say that the island of Ireland is one of the ‘British Isles’ — notwithstanding the fact that this is self-evidently true." By implication, are National Geographic "anti-all-things-British"? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er.... The Map is called the "British Isles Political Map" which translated means "A Geographical map of the Britsh Isles" and on which you will find the geographical entities of (1) Great Britain and (2) Ireland. Look further and you will see the political entities of (1) Great Britain (2) Northern Ireland (part of the UK) and (3) Ireland. Some problem with this - proves my point doesn't it? Or you could, of course, look at the Wiki entry for the British Isles which makes the same clear statement. Censura 18:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the map and read the title of the map as written on the map itself (large print, bottom left). --sony-youth^pléigh 18:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. If some of our more enthusiastic editors pick up on this the National Geographic shop will be bombarded with emails for being so insensitive, and there'll be Irish politicians calling for them to be banned. Oddly, they don't seem to offer a British Isles geographic or physical map, or whatever you call those ones with mountains etc. "Britain and Ireland" is commonly [mis]used to mean UK and RoI as well as Great Britain and Ireland, and while what we've done may seem to you to go too far in pandering to the Irish, many there feel equally strongly that we've gone too far in the other direction. The fact that there's this "dispute" is in itself quite educational, and that's more important than getting worked up about demanding that one side or the other be given precedence. Mind you, the article should still be there and called "British Isles", unless the lobbyists establish another name worldwide, to the extent required by naming policy. Moderation in all things.. dave souza, talk 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... I can hear User:Hughsheehy's pencil tearing a hole through his monogrammed stationary as I type! I can only concur with your wisdom, Dave. Its quite remarkable that it has taken Wikipedia to bring this out into the open. Ah, that cursed sea between us, always too wide and too narrow! --sony-youth^pléigh 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarkably elegant language in the last couple of posts! But the FACT remains that there is a bunch of islands that is called, and always has been, the "British Isles". There is no credible reference book that even marginally suggests that the island of Ireland is not one of them. And dear old Wiki itself in its British Isles entry agreees - as it should. Quad erat demonstrandum that an entry that is about the ISLAND of Ireland (as opposed to the independent State of Ireland) MUST acknowledge that the ISLAND is one of those blasted British Isles! Censura 10:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary there are quite a few, otherwise how ever could we have that most abrasive of oxymorons, at least for some editors, "British Isles and Ireland" (see books, scholarly articles, web). And neither is this designation new - see uses before 1922. When you say that "there is a bunch of islands that is called, and always has been, the 'British Isles'", you surely mean only since 1621, and even then not so consistently?

But all of this is acadenic. I fail to see how whether Ireland be a British Isle or not, that it "MUST" be in the mentioned in the article (which was "quad erat demonstrandum".) This is an international encyclopedia. What merit has some obscure, out-dated and insular (if you'll excuse the pun) term, that was never well-found and only half-heartedly applied in Ireland, got to with do with anything? Our readers want to know that Ireland is an island of Europe, not be bamboozled by quaint 19th-century anglic terminology. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The British Isles ... are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe comprising Great Britain, Ireland and a number of smaller islands." From the current Wiki British Isles entry. Shouldn't you (Sony Youth) either (1) Be changing the British Isles entry if you are so sure that it is erroneous or (2) Accepting that for consistency alone a reference to Ireland as one of the British Isles (suitably qualified to stress geography if you wish) should be on the Ireland entry???? Censura 14:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Censura, this debate happens every six months, can be fun, but draining. GH 15:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GH - it seems a classic Wiki encounter. I must say that it has been well-mannered and stimulating -- so far! As "The Spectator" letter suggested this sort of thing is a weakness of Wiki, but I suppose that it is a strength as well ! Censura 15:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't care too much what the mag would say, paper never refuses ink, it's just another article. WP has many weaknesses, you'll be some editor if you cure .0001% of them. Good luck! -GH 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, GH - nice to you see - Censura, trust me, I'm not one of those that would want to edit the British Isles article in that way (see this subpage and the archives on the talk page for far worse then me). Attempts are regularly made to highlight issues and (mis)uses of the term in relation to Ireland, but are all but edited out, like yours to the Ireland page, "for neutrality". The good news is that the debate over the word is pretty "localized" - pages relating to Ireland simply avoid it, its easily done while giving the same information - and there's no 'campaign' to remove it from anywhere else.

Two flash point, I remember were River Shannon and Lough Neagh. Are they respectively the longest/largest river/lake in the "British Isles" or in "Britain and Ireland"? Whichever is chosen the same information is given, but British editors really want to say "British Isles" and Irish editors really don't. To give an argument from the Irish side (aside from the jarring name), see the following exchange on the Shannon River talk page:

User A: Regarding the Shannon being the longest river in the British Isles ... according to "Longest rivers in the United Kingdom", the Severn is longer.

User B: The Shannon is not in the United Kingdom, which is a different thing from the British Isles. See British Isles (terminology).

User A: I don't quite follow.

These kind of errors are not limited to Wikipedia. On a state visit to the Republic in the '80s, Mikhail Gorbachev remarked how he was surprised not to be met by the "Queen". Why? Because Ireland is one of the British Isles. All the dictionaries and encyclopedia in the world can define and describe the British Isles in as much detail as they like. People hear "British", they think "UK". For clarity, at a minimum, I'd be set against it.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that we are not going to agree. If I can leave you on a positive note then its that if the worst thing about Wikipedia is that the "Ireland" article "neglects" to mention that it is a British Isle, really we're not doing too bad. For all the difference it makes, one way or the other, for a bunch of amateurs who don't know each other, we've collected a lot of information here. I hope you didn't get scared off - and even if you did just drop by to "stir things up" (joking), please stick around. Chances are, next time we meet, we'll be bonded allies on something equally unimportant but that still stirs our passions. Take care. --sony-youth^pléigh 18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice response sony-youth - thanks ! I'll park the issue for a while. But remember what General Douglas MacArthur said - "I shall return"! Censura 08:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coupe du Monde.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coupe du Monde.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]