Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Manual of Style

Why is there no mention in this about removal of British Isles? Something like British Isles should not be removed from articles unless it is clearly used incorrectly etc? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not be covered by the "edit warring" clause and the likely topic ban for systematic changes.

How about, "Edit warring over use or non-use of British Isles, including needless adding or removing the term, is discouraged." --RA (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Define "needless". The rest of the statement is (supposedly) already covered by existing policies. --HighKing (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it may not be edit warring, a random editor going around removing British isles once (and no one reverting it) would not be going against the current proposed MOS and unless community wide restrictions are agreed in the debate over at the admin notice board they would be doing nothing wrong. So something on removal of BI is needed in the MOS. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BW. Maybe we need to include something which says that the removal of BI must be taken to the talk page (or project page) with clear reason for it's removal given. And maybe removal/addition without an edit summary is not allowed. Bjmullan (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if we can do this but also what about a 1RR on all articles involved in a BI insertion/deletion? Bjmullan (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that removal/additions without edit summaries should be blockable offenses. I'd add that a removal or addition should also always be accompanied by a reference (either book, article, or MOS). Also agree on a 1RR. --HighKing (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example from Highking. FWA Footballer of the Year

"Another sporting article. It states that a footballer was First winner of the award from outside the British Isles. I suggest that in keeping with other sporting articles, it would be better to use Home Nations. " - Now that article used British Isles clearly in a geographical way, unless it was inaccurate (and he was not the first) then it should not have been changed. If it applied to Europe, no one would object to that saying he was the first winner from outside of Europe. .. British Isles must be treated fairly as a geographical location, in the same way Europe would and the MOS needs to state that somehow and warn against removals like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not anything to do with a geographic location, and in reality, Home Nations evolved from a time when there were 4 football federations within the UK, and competitions were organized between the organizations on these islands. Footballing competitions organized in this way use the term Home Nations, even today. It's the correct term. --HighKing (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with a geographical location and nothing to do with organisation of footballing competitions. This is about saying a person was the first winner from outside of a geographical location. Outside of the British Isles is perfectly acceptable just like Outside Europe would be for the first non european winner. You may prefer another term and others may too, but that is what has to stop. Your endless quest to remove British Isles by finding hundreds of examples and saying "oh this would be better", " We should say this instead". Only clearly inaccurate uses of BI should be put forward for removal. This use was not inaccurate, even if you think something else was better. But i see you got your way on that one and now BI is not mentioned at all despite it being accurate.

And i am not going to support an MOS that doesnt attempt to put a stop to such activity like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Less rant. More calm. So why is it notable exactly? Would it be equally notable for "outside of Northern Europe"? I can understand why it's notable for Home Nations given the history. Stating it's "perfectly acceptable" isn't a reason. --HighKing (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not getting into a debate with you here on this specific issue. It is an example where British Isles was not incorrectly used. You simply wanted a different term to be used. That is something the MOS has to address to stop someone like yourself going to dozens of pages with the clear mission of removing British Isles from them. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Great logic there. If this isn't WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't know what is. --HighKing (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your anti-BI campaign over the past couple of years comes to mind. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles declared war on Germany - That is clearly inaccurate use of the term BI.

He was the first to win something from outside of the British Isles - There is nothing incorrect about that sentence. You may like an alternative name to be used, but it is not necessary for a change. That is the difference. I have no problem with you finding examples like the first and requesting they be fixed. The second did not need fixing. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of British Isles in political contexts should be avoided after 1922

I am sort of confused about this, British Isles is a geographical term and can only really be used in that. Could you give me a basic example of something that would be valid to say British isles pre 1922, but not after? Also does "political context" just relate to use of the term, or articles as a whole. So for example, could British Isles be used on articles about politicians as long as its used as a geographical term? Sorry about these questions now, i missed the debate that led up to the proposed wording, BritishWatcher (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose he's thinking of something like "the whole of the British Isles celebrated the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria". But that's just sloppy - even if you had one sloppy source that said it, the 99 others would say 'the nation.' Or saying "in the British Isles, the age of consent is 16", which is equally sloppy (and possibly not true). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that is still using "British isles" in a geographical way, Its describing an area. So if we are saying that people celebrating the jubilee is using it in a political context rather than a geographical context what about other types of topic. Football is liked by people throughout the British Isles. Is that a cultural context or using it in a geographical way? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the example on the jubilee would need to apply to the state, rather than say BI. But if the age of consent was exactly the same throughout the British Isles? is it wrong to use it? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I think it's wrong though - I think it's still 18 in the Channel Islands. I can't think of a really good example that has a political context, because politically the countries and the various islands have so frequently acted as separate from each other.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the example of age of consent should not use BI as it suggests a common (single) law between all the countries when there are many. Bjmullan (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use it that way. Perhaps "strong drink has been the scourge of the working classes throughout the British Isles" might be an example.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is too articifial. Better to maybe augment this to state that if a reference exists, the reference should not be rewritten to avoid the term. --HighKing (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the Irish Republic

Pulled this over here for further discussion.

Use of British Isles on articles that relate particularly to the Republic of Ireland or to the island of Ireland (including their geographic features) should be avoided except where the article relates more particularly to Northern Ireland.

is plumb wrong where geographical features are concerned. As I said on the project page, it is not wrong to describe the Shannon as the longest river in the British Isles in some contexts. Just saying it is the longest river in the Irish Republic does not do it any favours, and is misleading. People looking it up to answer that question don't want a vast debate about naming conventions, they want to know if it is the longest river in that recognised geographical space. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points, both practical. The first is that consensus, rightly or wrongly, right now is to avoid the term on Ireland-realted articles. The second is that there is a presumption that there is no other way of expressing the same thing except through use of the term British Isles. In reality, other turns of phrase are used to express the same thing. Most commonly some arrangement of "Britain" and "Ireland" (examples for the longest river). --RA (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consensus, rightly or wrongly, right now is to avoid the term on Ireland-realted articles O rly? So if Panama decided it no longer wanted to be part of the Americas, we would restrict ourselves to saying 'the Panama canal is a significant navigational feature in Panama.'--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, taking the first 10 of your 'examples'

describes it as the longest river in the Kingdom of Ireland
longest river in the British Isles
and
(which is another edition of (3) use the misleading phrase "in Ireland or Great Britain"
doesn't appear to contain any phrase crediting the Shannon with being the longest river
uses the misleading phrase "in Britain or Ireland"
"No river system in the British Isles is very large. The Shannon in Ireland is the longest river"

8, 9 and 10 describe it as the longest river in Ireland

I don't think that was a particularly good set of examples.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I think consensus is fine, but its also just too artificial to assume the consensus exists across all Ireland articles related to geography. It's either a valid geographic term, or it's not. Since it is, the MOS guidelines shouldn't include this. Personally I believe this type of consensus is wrong and should not be encouraged. The river Shannon *is* the longest river in the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further action

There's another option. As of today (for want of a date), British Isles will not be added to articles 'or' deleted from articles. If it's there? leave it & if not? don't add it. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of highkings examples

One of Highkings proposed removals was for Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland

"The article states When the Irish Free State came into existence in 1922, three categories of banknote were in circulation. These consisted of notes issued by the Bank of England, the British Treasury and six Irish banks then in existence who were chartered to issue notes. Only British Treasury notes had legal tender status within the state. The issuing of banknotes by multiple private institutions was an everyday aspect of banking in the British Isles at the time and indeed remains so in Northern Ireland and Scotland today. The text shouldn't mix geographical and geopolitical descriptions and should use "United Kingdom" instead." (this is copied from his post here)

Under the proposed MOS would British Isles remain or be removed? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man issued (and continue to issue) their own currency. At the time, this was issued on those islands by several banks. The CIs and the IOM are in a currency union, not part of the UK. Therefore British Isles is correct, and UK would also be correct. Either could be used.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CI and IoM were not being discussed. The article discusses the British Treasury. Therefore it refers to the UK. Or if we're picking the statement in isolation without reference to context, we could equally state The issuing of banknotes by multiple private institutions was an everyday aspect of banking in the WORLD at the time and indeed remains so in Northern Ireland and Scotland today. --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but you could say 'in the British Isles'. It would be neither incorrect nor misleading to do so. It could be misleading to use 'UK' because the creation of the Irish Free State altered the makeup of the UK, and in that specific case, it would not be clear whether one meant the pre or post structure. Use of 'British Isles' makes it clearer that the geographical area was meant.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. At no time, ever, were banknotes issued for the "British Isles". It's very clear, and that the article states, that issuing banknotes was within the realm of the British Treasury. Using "British Isles" in this case can only be interpreted that the British Treasury were responsibly for issuing banknotes for the British Isles. That's simply untrue. --HighKing (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in a case where British Isles is correct and UK would be correct, there needs to be a rule to stop someone simply removing BI. Highking claimed that was " geographical and geopolitical descriptions and they shouldn't mix. Im worried that alot of things are going to be viewed by some as "political" and there for as its post 22, be viewed as against this MOS. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Well, given that I ran into him insisting that a reference to the roads in the British Isles be removed, I would think that anything is possible.~~--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall bumping into you previously. Which article was that? --HighKing (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On giving this more thought (and being unable to find the diffs as I cannot recall the article title at all), I have struck the comment. It may not have been you involved, and as I recall having brought it more fully to mind, my conclusion was that although I wouldn't have changed the terminology, it was loosely used, and a change to a tighter geographical location was not unreasonable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification and striking the comment. Appreciate that. --HighKing (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the personal motivations of the main protagonists

Oppose

Please count this is a general oppose to all of the above, to this 'Blarney Thought Police Force', until the same discussion arises from a non-partisan and expert editor, e.g. a qualified geographer.

My concern is comments like "only articles that are obviously incorrect" might start appearing, followed by the accusation that attempts to discuss articles are a "systematic campaign". --HighKing (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is and it is being operated as such - which I would underline with the word "petty" in many cases. Until you and others make a personal statement about what exactly your politics and personal issues are, it will remain to be seen as such. I am sorry to say but, to an outsider, who is new to this debate, it looks more like one man's psychological issues with the thought of an English run Westminister Government casting its dirty shadow over his saintly Eire.

The real problem with such an artfully worded policy proposal as this is that it is being created as a pretext for a far more extensive and doctrinarian purpose.

This is underlined by the political invocation of the 1922 cut off (ha!) and the casting of any opposite to your historical revision as "a hardcore small number of British hardliners" rather than just "rational onlookers reacting to some silly word war game". This is then emphasised by other supporters leaving puerile statements suggesting that those who do not agree with the agenda do not understand the historical issues involved.

This politicisation and nationalisation of an entirely non-political issue and the circumvention of the real and actually process to decide such a geo-political question, which has to take place somewhere off the Wikipedia and by real experts in the field, e.g. Royal Geographical Society. The term British Isles as a useful, non-political and unifying literary device that should be widely and freely usable as an accurate abbreviation without having to pass the tortuous scrutiny of one man.

I say "ha!" to 1922 because that is a position which is certainly not widely reflected in academia. The British Isles are a live and well. --Triton Rocker (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. But I'm interested to see your reference to the Royal Geographical Society. They (in fact, Professor Klaus Dodds of the University of London) say this on their website:

"Place names matter. They not only help to locate particular locations but often invoke particular feelings and attachments....The British and Irish isles remain haunted by place naming. The most obvious is ‘Northern Ireland’. Or should we call it the ‘occupied six counties’ or ‘Ulster’? For Irish nationalists and unionists, the place name favoured is not an innocent one. Each invokes a different geography and history. Take the ‘occupied six counties’ as a starting point. For Irish nationalists, the term ‘Northern Ireland’ while geographically accurate does not highlight the contested nature of the island of Ireland. By using a term like the 'occupied six counties’, Irish nationalists remind audiences that they resent the continued British colonial presence and locate Northern Ireland within a broader Irish context composed of a total of 32 counties. The 1922 Anglo-Irish Treaty divided the island and created the geographical and legal conditions for partition. To this day, Irish place names remain controversial – is it Londonderry or Derry? Or is it Doire or Doire Cholmchille? To use English place names is, for Irish nationalists, a provocative gesture, which naturalizes the 800 years of British dominance. Place names, therefore, are never politically innocent...In their different ways, they provide daily reminders for citizens and governments alike that the attachments we have to places matter deeply..."[1]

Ghmyrtle (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS:This thread (the one started by Triton Rocker above) should in my view be moved to the talk page. Do we agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Ghymyrtle. I know there is always the possibility with this set of issues that the discussion can simply become invective, but so far the tone has been generally good and we shouldn't be deflected from it. Triton, you are welcome to participate but would you be willing to avoid remarks likely to antagonise? I assure you that you are not on your own here and there are editors of different views on the subject participating. Wikipedia is about collaboration, not confrontation. I respect your views but I think you will find in the long run that it's better to reach concrete agreement - the alternative is to go back (as the people at ANI have warned) to in-fighting and blocks. Feel free to respond on my talk page if you would like to counter-attack my argument and I will be happy to try to explain my views on this further. Let's give this a chance and also not be too impatient please - it will take time and it will be tough at times. Let's try not to exchange harsh words with each other. All of us who live in these islands need to respect each other fully. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this thread from project page per discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]