Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples/Closed3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism

Resolved
 – Removing BI is OK. TFOWR 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Article states In Europe, especially, except in the British Isles, liberalism had been fairly weak and unpopular relative to its opposition, like socialism, and therefore no change in meaning occurred. The reference cited (Liberalism and Its History) only discusses countries such as England, France, Italy, USA, and West Germany, with the occasional mention of Europe. As per previously discussed examples, it's better to not mix country names and geographical areas such as the British Isles. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So this one first - the primary architects of classical liberalism within these islands were surely Adam Smith (Scottish), Malthus (English), David Hume (Scottish) and Ricardo - Jewish of Dutch origin residing in London. This would seem a classic for the "British Isles" - it is certainly not "England" as you have it. More tomorrow!Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Well its really the Scottish and English Enlightenment isn't it? Its also a political term and in general we should avoid using a geographical term in a political context. I would have thought this was a case for just having Western Europe (which afterall includes the UK), otherwise the correct term is the UK. I should say here that if we were talking about say empiricism then British Isles would probably be most appropriate given the period in which Barclay and others were operating. --Snowded TALK 23:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi James. Most of the time, I read the references to check what they say, and read the article for context. The provided reference only talks about Liberalism in England. The context of the article discusses "British" traditions alongside those of other large powers. I changed it to "England" because that is what is supported by the reference. In this instance though, I'm sure that a strong case could be made to use "United Kingdom" instead. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Were scholars, philosphers or politicians of Irish descent involved in the formulation of this philosphical viewpoint? It may be that usage closes down other possibilities. I have a book on liberalism, I will take a look. Can't recall all the people involved in it right now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi James. Perhaps people from Ireland were. But the reference provided for the statement doesn't talk about "British Isles" (see above for my earlier reply). The point being made in the article where it used the phrase "British Isles" is a little obtuse - I would be surprised if you find another publication that makes the same point *and* uses "British Isles". Be careful - it appears that you are trying to introduce the term "British Isles" into this article through your own research or addition/changing of article content. --HighKing (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I haven't introduced anything - we are discussing your deletion of "British Isles" from the article - to my recollection I have never even looked at the article before, let alone edited it! That aside, it is clear that the article needs further development and referencing - books I've glanced at during the last couple of hours, for example, refer to it as being chiefly a phenomenon emerging from the Scottish Enlightenment, tempered by intellectual developments in France and elsewhere. I suspect this is a case of drive-by changing not being very sensitive to the actual thrust of an article or it's content. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
James, you are correct to a point. I don't confess to trying to fix articles to the point of FA grade, or looking to expand and improve every article I change. In this case, I looked at the point being made in the paragraph where "British Isles" was used, checked (and read) the reference being used, and corrected. If my edit is wrong, point it out. If you believe I've disimproved the article, point it out. But don't accuse my of drive-by changing. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right on the importance of the Scottish Enlightenment. I'd still go with Western Europe on this however, its pretty clear that this is a case where BI is not appropriate. --Snowded TALK 11:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, this one is really straight forward. Its an article about the 19th so its the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland, which is the correct political term for the main body. In the lede Western Europe is fine. Per previous discussion, BI is legitimate geographical term but in general is not a valid political term unless there is no practical alternative. --Snowded TALK 12:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I phoned my old history professor at Warwick (yes, I went there Snowded!) and asked him what he thought - he informs me that in his opinion it is "the workings of the Scottish Englightenment writ large onto the European political canvas via the monomaniacal intellectual excesses, sometimes logical and constrained, sometimes the mental afflictions of extreme Protestantism, of Smith and Malthus" - I won't try writing that into the article! In short, I agree that it's not just "England" - bit disappointing though to make it "Western Europe", surely this loses the sense of it. Wouldn't this quite simply be best left to future editors of that article? I suggest HighKing's edit be reverted and left as-is. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a fellowship at Warwick - nice place. Its certainly not BI and English would be wrong. You could put in Scotland as two of the main thinkers came from there. I like your history teacher mind you - lovely phrase please get him to publish it so we can put it in. --Snowded TALK 12:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, not stalking, but I knew about your Warwick connection from your real-world pages - it's a good institution in many ways, despite the often burning desire for commercial exploitation! On the article, agreed about it not being England and not quite BI - how about this as a revised opener: Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century, chiefly in Scotland and subsequently in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. I _think_ this is a fairly accurate reflection but anything tighter will require more article development and referencing which alas I have no time for today. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Deal, go for it (if you can help out with the latest sockpuppet who has appeared on the page at the same time great)--Snowded TALK 12:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you any more thoughts on this one HighKing, as it was your edit initially? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If would help enormously if there's a reference. The reference cited doesn't highlight Scotland. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
He no care. Just so long as BI not there. SpongerJack (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Good deal. No BI in there so must be right. Ride on! SpongerJack (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected this one to the agreed version - please discuss any further edits to the affected sentence here first before making further changes, as a courtesy to the many editors involved in this discussion. Thanks. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You've rewritten the lede opening, but you haven't addresses usage of "British Isles". The sentence in question being In Europe, especially, except in the British Isles, liberalism had been fairly weak and unpopular relative to its opposition, like socialism, and therefore no change in meaning occurred. --HighKing (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
So you had missed that one! I noticed you hadn't removed that one to start with nut you've found it now so another case to be made. SpongerJack (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Will have a think about that bit HighKing - it seems to be a different context at first sight. Any other editors views welcomed! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks James - BTW, I've now got no idea what's going on because this is the usage I've always been discussing. Check my initial edit. Check the first post at the start of this section. Perhaps now my comments make more sense? --HighKing (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, you are right HighKing - I got distracted by the introductory sentence and so didn't particularly notice that your first edit on that page affected both segments - at least it's getting looked at now! My initial reaction is that the whole sentence is a bit peculiar, I am just thinking for my part of how that para could be better phrased - the article is a bit disjointed and does not tell a consistent story. As I said up above somewhere, the whole article needs work really. Can't look any more at this one today unfortunately, will look again tomorrow morning, but if other editors can chip in, fine with me. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
James, there's no clock running. If you know something about the subject and feel you can improve it, take as long as you like, and we can even remove it from this list. In general, when I look at articles, I start with the references to see if the statement or usage of British Isles is supported. After that, I take into consideration the subject matter (Geographic? Anglican church? etc). --HighKing (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is the problem and this one highlights the motivation of them that wnat to remove British Isles. Lower down was another example that the HighKing had missed so now he wants to lose that one as well. So its not really about putting things right, it really is about getting rid of British Isles at all costs. Jimbo, you've been sucked in. I think I saw the word brainwashed somewhere. SpongerJack (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I support the removal of British Isles from this sentence. No clue how it should be reworded or changed, but i see no reason for British Isles to remain there. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  • To make life easier for the likes of me, and particularly for folk arriving with no clue about what's going on, I'm planning to mark stuff as {{Resolved}} (assuming, obviously, that it is resolved). This looks obviously resolved to me - any objections to closing it out? TFOWR 07:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

British national grid reference system

Resolved
 – BI is fine here. Incidentally, the article discusses three systems, then mentions a fourth - in the Channel Islands. My understanding is that BI traditionally encompasses the Channel Islands: hence should be four systems in the BIs. I'll leave that to someone who cares more, however. ;-) TFOWR 13:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied from the article Talk page:

The lede currently reads as:

The British national grid reference system is a system of geographic grid references commonly used in Great Britain, different from using latitude and longitude.

The Ordnance Survey (OS) devised the national grid reference system, and it is heavily used in their survey data, and in maps (whether published by the Ordnance Survey or commercial map producers) based on those surveys. Grid references are also commonly quoted in other publications and data sources, such as guide books or government planning documents.

Two different systems exist to provide grid references for the United Kingdom: this article describes the one used for Great Britain and its outlying islands (including the Isle of Man); a similar system, used throughout Ireland (including Northern Ireland), is the Irish grid reference system (used jointly by the Ordnance Survey of Ireland and the former Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland).

Originally the article stated

Two such systems exist for the British Isles

Use of "United Kingdom" instead of "British Isles" in this makes the point that (because of an understandable potential confusion) that all of the UK do not use a single "British" grid system. Although all four constituent countries are British, the British system is used on the island of Great Britain, and a different system is used on the island of Ireland. Furthermore, the Channel Islands uses yet another system. I corrected the text, but we now have some editors attempting to introduce "The British Isles have 3 systems" into the text for no reason other than to inject "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As Snowded reminds us above, BI is the correct term for geo-contexts. The Channel Islands bit is really a distraction here, as the article segment in question outlines the several systems chiefly used in the BI and CI and which one the article is about (GB and outliers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesinderbyshire (talk • contribs) 12:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the phrase "Three different systems exist to provide grid references for the British Isles: this article describes the one used for Great Britain and its outlying islands (including the Isle of Man)" is informative and should stay. Its geography, they were originally one, its not misleading. --Snowded TALK 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a valid usage, but it's making a completely different point than the original point (which I've explained above). --HighKing (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles in this case seems reasonable as its about a geographical location talking about both Ireland and Britain. There is no clear need for British Isles to have been removed in this case, it could have been reworded slightly though. This process should focus on inaccurate use of British Isles, which i accept looking over some of the above cases mentioned there are plenty of. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There are - and in that sense HighKing is doing a good job by exposing them to scrutiny. Do a lot of people edit globally across one small piece of topic like this rather than article-by-article? I am wondering which is more effective. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to start shutting down off-topic chats, by the way. WP:SPI is that-a-way... TFOWR 13:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm offering a bounty. It's to be awarded to anyone who can find an example of where HighKing added British Isles to an article to put right an inaccuracy. SpongerJack (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You seem quite knowledgable about the BI stuff & its players, for an account a few hours old. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a sock, is it not? Then again there are socks on both sides already - HighKing/Popaice/Insectgirl and MisterFlash/MBM to name but two. LevenBoy (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Nice try, but Insectgirl wasn't me and has been cleared by the SPI. Popaice was me, but wasn't used to breach any policies such as 3RR, etc, and served it's purpose - all was fully disclosed to the relevant SPI clerks and they've cleared it. You, on the other hand, are a suspected sock of MBM/MF (and all the rest of their socks), and when I think back on the abuse (still) being leveled at me, I only wonder at how admins allowed you (and are continuing to allow you) to get away with this for so long. You should be ashamed, but I suppose its just how you get your kicks. --HighKing (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
You have no evidence that I am a sock of MBM/MF, which I'm not. If you had anything concrete you'd be disclosing it. I assume all you've got is some vague feeling due to the similar nature of my edits with those of the socks. Anyway, now you've admitted to Popaice I'll say no more about it. Incidentally, I object to this Home Nations business. It is not right to use terminology such as that in a general sense and as a substitute for BI. As I've noted, Home Nations is a British/Irish thing, unknown to the rest of the world. LevenBoy (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
As I've crowed before, all sock-masters should be penalized. Lack of trust in these discussions are harmful. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Angloromani

Resolved
 – Consensus is to remove BI. TFOWR 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deliberately kept away from this 'debate', but it appears references are being mis-applied to promote a particular terminology in articles that have no obvious relation to the British/Irish identity squabble. This edit [1] recently changed term from 'United Kingdom' to 'British Isles' at the infobox. Two refs were cited as justification; Acton and Kenrick and Kuno Meyer. The first employs the term only once, to indicate the first arrival of Romani people to the 'British Isles', but this obviously pre-dates the developement of the Angloromani language/dialect/cant, and so clearly fails as a reference for its use. The second fails as it neither uses the term 'British Isles' nor deals with Angloromani at all, but with two distinct forms of Irish-language derived cant, namely Shelta and 'Béarlagar na Saol'. This kind of 'carelessness' (I'll put it no stronger than that) in referencing re. the BI issue must be discouraged. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If the reference do not support the claim then you should remove them. I noticed this edit from the same editor and was wondering if it was valid. No reference was provided for the change from England to Britain? Bjmullan (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In light of this discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:LevenBoy, it seemed best to bring it to notice here and seek consensus before removal. Is that not what this page is for? RashersTierney (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
In light of no attempt to justify references, I've restored original terminology and removed erroneous refs at article. RashersTierney (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

More of the same here [2]. Looks like changing parameters, which are less precise, simply to 'justify' the phrase. WP:GAME? RashersTierney (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed that this editor has been actively adding BI in many articles without getting involved in the MOS discussions or taking issues to the talkpage. I informed him on his talkpage but he has since blanked his page. Maybe one to watch out for. Bjmullan (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles which was added to the article has now been removed. I see no reason for it to be readded in this case, so support the current wording and back this section being closed and archived when others are ready. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

English nationalist or something? It is not political.

Resolved
 – Sent to ANI. Sanctions applied. TFOWR 13:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

HighKing left a note on my talk page and I had a quick scan of this page. All I want to say is that use of British Isles is not political for me. It is purely geographical. It is a very common and useful term when referring to issues relating to the British Isles.

Fixing some unrelated article, I came across some really weird, convoluted and wordy constructions and I simplified them. I also came across some some things that were plainly wrong and contradictory to other material in the topic or history.

To be frank, I do not know what this is all about but it just looks like some guy pushing his own agenda, whatever that might be. Trying to inject stuff like "Home Nations" into anything except a rugby match is tripping up over one's own laces to make a point.

Is HighKing an English nationalist or something?

Just to underline how ridiculous it gets ... I had to point out that there are indeed English Language Schools for foreigners in Eire as well as the UK! It may surprise some that even Dubliners have a good grasp of the English language these days! It is about as daft as trying to tell an Irish traveller he only speaks Shelta and does not use English, "Angloromani" or even Cockney. The world has moved on.

As someone of mixed "British Islian" heritage, I have to point out that just as in the past, the borders which have separated different "kingdoms" have been fluid, flexible and constantly changing. Actually, they still are. Those borders are mainly artificial, of little consequence to ordinary people, and apply mostly to aspect of governance rather than, say, language or culture. It is plain wrong to apply today's standards or definitions to a time in the past (or even a mythic one) when they did not apply, or attempt to enforce a historical snapshot.

Bearing all that in mind, British Isles is therefore more than often the best term for the job---and certainly better than an unnecessary list of all countries etc. --Triton Rocker (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be interested to take a look at this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enough_of_this_-_proposal where a topicban for highking and others on this matter are being considered right now. Highking is Irish, not English. As some mention over on that link, hes spent the past couple of years seeking to remove British Isles from articles. It may be worth your while to follow the discussion there if you do sometimes add British Isles to articles in an accurate way to avoid falling foul of anything agreed which might apply to all editors, not just certain individuals. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Are edits here intended to address the issues raised regarding mis-application of the term at Angloromani or just a general commentary? I don't see how the 2 references are pertinent. Do we have consensus on that? RashersTierney (talk) 17:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage

Resolved
 – Editor self-reverted. Current version uses United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland which seems the most appropriate option. TFOWR 13:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just raising a question over the validity of this edit. The editor concerned seems to be making a series of edits - examples here - in the manner of someone stepping onto a busy highway without taking due care and attention for personal safety, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That editor was aware of this page and was informed of the AN/I above, but I've posted a pointer on his Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this editor is perfectly aware of your bizzare campaign HighKing to remove the world British Isles and has no idea what is motivating it.
The bottomline is ... it end up messy, wordy, inaccurate and fraught with historical problems (name and border changes). The only safe and consistent solution is to use a geographical reference and not a political one.
I fixed the above. To me it seem pedantic to define the information boxes by their code rather than what they say to the users. I do not how to edit the information boxes yet and so I did the best I could within the limits. --Triton Rocker (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I've now clarified the wording in question by linking it to the historically correct article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The field in the infobox refers to the country where the book was published. The book was published in 1982 in the United Kingdom. --RA (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I've corrected it. --RA (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
umm.. it was first published in 1887...?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This one has been fully resolved, editor that added British Isles changed it back. Certainly no need for British Isles to be added there under the country section of the infobox, although considering the debate on if it should be United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i can see why BI might have been considered to try and avoid needing to mentioning both but obvious the label country being there makes that inappropriate.

So this is another that can be closed and archived (maybe these more recent ones could just be put in an archive box to close them, if its too soon to send it to the archive page. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Keith Floyd

Resolved
 – OK, I'm not actually 100% convinced that this has been resolved. I'm going to suggest, however, that Tony1 (talk) suggested that links to articles about the books/TV shows are useful (which doesn't apply here - there's no article on Floyd on Britain and Ireland), but that the overall consensus at WT:MOSLINK was that the linking in the list of cookery shows was very silly. Floyd on Fish? Really? Lose the damn links for every book/show, whether it involves BI or not... TFOWR 13:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I came across a wikilink like this [[British Isles | Britain and Ireland]]. I corrected it to point to Great Britain and Ireland. --HighKing (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How many more will you be doing, say, over the next 24 hours HK? Just so we can work out a rota. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
No more for a long while. They were on my list and were bugging me, but list is empty now. --HighKing (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you "correct" that? What was incorrect about it? --RA (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Because the title and program referred to the island of "Great Britain" and the island of "Ireland". Not the same thing as "British Isles". If it was intended to be "British Isles", I'm sure the program makers would have said so. Remember WP:V and WP:RS. Reminds me of a discussion you and me had a while back too, but I can't find it now... --HighKing (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
This one looks right, but I can't see the contents of the book on amazon and would be intrigued to see if Mr Floyd included dishes from the IoM, CI, etc. I bet Jersey potatoes and Guernsey tomatoes were in there somewhere. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"Because the title and program referred to the island of 'Great Britain' and the island of 'Ireland'." It did? How do you know this? It could mean "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland". What I suspect is that he and the program makers meant it in the sense of "British Isles". In either case, we don't know; but the editor who added the link originally may have. So why did you change it? You don't know that the mean the islands of Great Britain and Ireland uniquely. --RA (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggest you apply BRD to this one. LevenBoy (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
I quote from the Probation page (Black Kite speaking): "I would say that if an addition or removal of BI is so obviously correct that neither "side" could disagree with it, then make it. For any other change, it should be discussed at WT:BISE first." This one looks controversial. Certainly at the present stage we do not know that the book is not about the British Isles as a whole. I therefore propose we revert HK's change on this one, ask about it on the article page and await further information. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Please do it. I may get blocked if I do. LevenBoy (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
"Keith Floyd travels around the British Isles to discover the history and culture of British food." - Description of the program from the program makers website (ref). HK, will you please self-revert. --RA (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is unbelievable that User Highking has created this situation so soon after the creation of the sanction conditions and I suggest asking one of the involved administrators to consider sanctioning him over this. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes - it should have been checked first at the article - I am certain there are lots of editors in the cookery and chef/food areas of Wikipedia who know a truckload more about Floyd and his books than any of us. I thought that was what the ANI decision called for. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean pipelinking 'British Isles' is no longer an option? GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • OK, this one is more controversial than I thought. But really, everyone, does it really matter? It's not even article text, it's a link. If no-one can decide how to wikilink the phrase, then don't link it at all. Even better, someone write an article on the TV show and then we can link it to that. Seriously, for people outside this dispute, some of this must appear to be bordering on WP:LAME. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Having said that, since this one is obviously an issue and needs to be discussed, I have reverted HK's edit myself. Now - discuss. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Apparently there's been some confusion about the purpose of the diffs I provided "for ease of reference". My intent was to enable us to see the edits - to refer to them. They were not intended to make life easier for editors wishing to revert, though I suppose that's an unexpected benefit if reverting is what you want to do. TFOWR 20:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm glad to see your revert Black Kite. There are always work-arounds to any given problem in this area (and frequently those have been used on controversial ones) - but this is all I feel a little disappointing. I thought the outcome of the ANI would be a firm decision to defend WP against POV and have a bar on doing site wide deletions/adds for no other reason than POV and insist they must be discussed first at article/BISE level. That isn't what we seem to be getting. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the pipelinking of British Isles was acceptable. You have it linked to the article that LB favours & showing an alternative that HK favours. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

  • I've suggested to HighKing that in future they should post here first, wait for a short period, then make the edit. I share Black Kite's surprise that this edit was in any way controversial, but clearly it was, so hopefully we can avoid surprises like this in future by checking here first. TFOWR 20:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Suggesting 30 minutes - I assumed you were joking! Where exactly is the fairness in working around a decision to consult by engaging in a psuedo-consultation? What exactly is the hurry? Even HK has previously stated to me that there is no hurry. Yet apparently there is. What is the reason for that please? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • It's obviously a joke. LevenBoy (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I've replied on HighKing's talk page. It was a suggestion. I posted here so that other editors could comment, on the assumption that if anyone had a problem with any detail of the suggestion we could adjust it. My assumption was that since editors responded so quickly on this occasion, and since multiple editors are monitoring this, 30 minutes would give ample opportunity for at least one editor to object. Apparently I was being naive. TFOWR 20:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
          • (ec)Yes, and we can now look forward to a continuing submission of articles from which HK would like BI removed. In other words, as you were! This is going to go on and on, the AN/I has made no difference. LevenBoy (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not quite right LevenBoy. Any adds or deletes must now (1) be posted here and on the relevant article talk page 24 hours before any change (2) be sourced and accurate (3) if controversial be not permitted without agreement. I now realise that's quite a solid improvement. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It also needs including in the probation that the desire to change it should be also placed on the talkpage of the article in question to allow any localised editors that never ever are gong to see this page to comment locally as to their opinions. Off2riorob (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I also note that fact that User Highking has been reverted so soon after the thread at ANI as indicative that the user took nothing on board from the thread or the creation of the probation. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Its all a two way street - if a proposal is made here then editors need to look at the evidence and respond within a reasonable time frame. One of the reasons it went wrong before is that two editors (now clearly established as socks) just said no to every proposal and progress was impossible. --Snowded TALK 06:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If other editors don't respond (with sensible, sourced points) within the 24 hours, then there is no reason for the change not to go ahead. Editors can't just ignore it and then come back later, unless presumably new sourced information becomes available. My anxiety right now is that HighKing himself appears to have rejected this process entirely in his conversation with Black Kite on his own talk page. I realise you are all upset over the sockpuppets, but some others are upset by perfectly legitimate editors who repeatedly delete, sometimes in tendentious circumstances. So, yes, it is a 2-way street, but you seem to have a tendancy Snowded to always claim that HK follows process, which he has just emphatically rejected. As for Floyd, the issue is clear - his book/TV programme is not proven to be just about Britain and Ireland only. Therefore a link through to British Isles was fair. Deleting it without the evidence is further evidence of a lack of process. For my part, I would always err on the side of caution when it comes to an HK delete. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
FAD I do think he should have followed process. If I had been on line I would have said so at the time, but I picked up on this after a 13 hour flight and it seems to have resolved itself. --Snowded TALK 07:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look resolved in any way. So far, HK's approach is that he rejects this process entirely (he now regards posting here as purely voluntary) unless a new list of specifications he himself has come up with are imposed. If that's resolution, I'm a small white banana called "Berekov". Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
rejects this process entirely? James, you've started to post a number of untruths about my actions and intentions at a number of places. I'll put it down to general ignorance of the long history of this topic. But it's pretty stupid to assume the other editors won't immediately whip over to my Talk page and check out the untruths of your statements and see the conversation for themselves. --HighKing (talk) 09:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I oppose highkings methods and think this highlights why sanctions should have been fully implemented which would have prevented High King from making this change. In future he should always come to this page with ANY change, no matter how uncontroversial or correct he may think a change is.

In this case i do support this alteration. British Isles should never be pipe linked from Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland. As the name of the episode/show is clearly Britain and Ireland, despite a mention on the page of British Isles on a BBC page about it, there is no need for British Isles to be used. "Great Britain and Ireland" should be what is said / linked to. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


Back on Track

Surely these are the really simple ones - the programme is called "Britain and Ireland" and the reference should conform with that title - what possible justification can there be for changing it to BI? --Snowded TALK 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The title of the programme was thus, but the content of the programme covered wider ground (see note below).Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, the programme covered the following locations:
  • NORFOLK (25/10/1988)
  • MIDLANDS (18/10/1988)
  • SOMERSET (04/10/1988)
  • CORK (27/09/1988)
  • ULSTER (06/09/1988)
  • NORTHUMBRIA (30/08/1988)
Details here. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
In which case I'm remembering a different cooking programme. Apologies - Britain and Ireland adequately covers that list.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
And what is to say that the "Britain" in the title should not link to "United Kingdom" and the "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland"? What is the basis for this change? --RA (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the things this has clearly shown is that Britain and Ireland is NOT synonymous with British Isles. Means those non-guidelines need rewriting.Elen of the Roads (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, although it is a frequent substitute. The point in this case however is really simple. The book is called Britain and Ireland, its not our place to decide he should have called the book or the television programme something different, --Snowded TALK 07:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
That's good, because nobody is trying to rename it. This is about a link. The link went through to BI. I haven't yet read a copy (will look at one later today - in Foyles) but the book is almost certainly about more than just Britain and Ireland. Therefore a link through to BI is totally reasonable and there are no good grounds for deleting it other than a pure POV that BI should not exist in en-Wikipedia - the outcome of which is that we would then have the strange situation of it being widely used in other language editions of Wikipedia except for the English language one. I wonder how this will be explained to curious foreign editors? Answers on a postcard please. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted the locations covered by the TV prog above, and a link. Perhaps you can double check the book? --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Snowded, the link originally pointed to British Isles. It was changed to point at Great Britain and Ireland individually on the presumption that it was about the islands not the group.
In fact, the program makers describe the programme as follows: "Keith Floyd travels around the British Isles to discover the history and culture of British food." (ref). Evidently, they equate the "Britain and Ireland" of this title with "British Isles", regardless of what we here may think. For me, this edit highlights the dangers of editors that are concerned solely with use of non-use of British Isles making changes to content that they are not au fait with.
"Britain and Ireland" is used frequently as a substitute for "British Isles". This is an example of one such occasion. It is not for us to say that that use is incorrect or not. --RA (talk) 08:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"Britain and Ireland" is *not* used frequently as a substitute for "British Isles" - althought the opposite is true. I'd love to see some examples so that I can understand better. And the program makers description is horribly inaccurate, I don't believe they're trying to claim that food from Cork and Ulster are examples of "British" food. Your mileage may vary, but this is utterly wrong. --HighKing (talk) 12:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
There are references used in the British Isles articles that can support the claim that, "'Britain and Ireland' is used frequently as a substitute for 'British Isles'." You are aware of them. If you have references to support a counter-claim that, "'Britain and Ireland' is *not* used frequently as a substitute for 'British Isles'", can you please post them to that article's talk page so that they can be included in that article? Otherwise, I will assume that that is a statement of your opinion but without foundation in reliable sources. Thanks, --RA (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but not where a title states "Britain and Ireland" and the content of the TV programme at least shows locations in GB&I. The references refer to places where, potentially, the term "British Isles" would be correct, but people chose to use "Britain and Ireland" instead. For this TV program, British Isles would always be wrong, so "Britain and Ireland" is not being used an an "alternative". --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"For this TV program, British Isles would always be wrong..." Excuse me, is Cork, Somerset, Norfolk and all those other locations not in the British Isles? Is there any place mentioned that is outside of the British Isles?
You that "British Isles" is not what is meant by "British Isles" in this case. You assume instead that the islands of Great Britain and Ireland (individually and uniquely) are what is meant. Why not the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Is that not also a sense in which "Britain" and "Ireland" may be meant? What is the basis of your assumption that two interpretations are "wrong" and one (seemingly chosen arbitrarily) is right. What is the basis upon which you want to make this change? What is the basis upon which you are choosing one sense in which "Britain and Ireland" could be meant above another? Outline below:
  • In this case, "Britain and Ireland" cannot mean "British Isles" because ...
  • In this case, "Britain and Ireland" cannot mean "United Kingdom" and "Republic of Ireland" beacuse ...
  • In this case, "Britain and Ireland" can only mean "the island of Great Britain" and "the island of Ireland" because ...
--RA (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi RA, one of the previous recommendations was to use the smallest relevant area descriptions. Sure, all of the locations listed are in the British Isles - equally, they're also in Europe, etc, etc. You've a good point in this case in that "Britain and Ireland" could refer to either UK&I or GB&I. --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Or, as I said below. England and Ireland. Jack 1314 (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on policy, but there seems to be a problem here. If we have a reference that states obviously incorrect information, such as, "Keith Floyd travels around the British Isles to discover the history and culture of British food" do we follow the exact wording of the ref? Do we dismiss the reference completely or leave out the obvious mistake? HighKing's link to the individual programmes shows that he travelled around Britain and Ireland, as the title reflects. Do we stick to that or leave out the obvious mistake that he travelled around the British Isles? Jack 1314 (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it an obvious mistake? Do you have to touch soil on every island of the British Isles before you can use that term? This "Manx clause", that unless you have been to the Isle of Man you have never been to the British Isles, is a load of old socks. --RA (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, there are two debates going on here and we need to separate them. The first is if Britain and Ireland can substitute for British Isles to which it seems to me the technical answer is no, but the practical answer is that it is frequently used that way (see some atlases). Second is the issue of this edit. Please correct me but is this the wikipedia or not? Does the wikipedia work by citation? What is the name of the programme? Why the need the link anyway, its a reference to a programme not a description? --Snowded TALK 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I could give you the argument that it should link to England and Ireland (island) as I don't see Wales and Scotland on his itinerary. Bit of a stretch then to say British Isles. Jack 1314 (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
*rolls eye* Whatever. Delete it. One less link to British Isles. 3482 to go. Keep up the good work, guys. --RA (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's debilitating isn't it? The above is a classic case of where there's no right or wrong, but given the statement that you found, which includes use of British Isles, it would seem reasonable that the term should not be deleted. However, we are back with the endless debating about the merits or othwerwise of the term, not whether its use is right or wrong. Quite sickening really. LevenBoy (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought this page was for discussion on the use of the term British Isles. If it can't be discussed without the rolling of eyes and being told it's sickening I don't see the point of it to be honest. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Neither do I. LevenBoy (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Is it possible to summarize and draw a conclusion on this? We appear to have most arguments saying that the link to British Isles, in this case, should not be there. There's disagreement over whether a book title should have a wikilink (MOS?). There's some who say that "Britain and Ireland" should not be wikilinked to "British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My view is that there is no need for a wikilink and the name should follow the reference, its not our place to correct or second guess --Snowded TALK 09:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the only wikilink from a book title should be to an article on that book title. HighKing, is there anything in the MOS on wikilinking book titles? Jack 1314 (talk) 10:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Nothing in the MOS as far as I can see. Might be worthwhile to ask though. I know the MOS says you shouldn't link within quotations and I believe the same thinking applies to linking to parts or a book title and not the whole. --HighKing (talk) 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland should never under any circumstances what so ever be wikilinked to British Isles. Either it says British Isles, or it says Britain and Ireland or simply does not link to anything at all and in this case if the programme title says Britain and Ireland there is no need for British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the question of linking book titles and programme titles at the MOS (linking) talk page. If anyone would like to add to it please do so. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving the past debates

Resolved
 – ...and agreeing with Snowded's one-line summary proposal. It'll make all our lives easier. TFOWR 14:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Now we do have new sanctions in place, would it be possible for us to have a fresh start on this page? All of the cases raised here which has not been commented on for over a month should be closed and archived. The status quo should remain on them. If people want them changed again then it can be bought forward again once the page is cleared.

But at the moment this page is so long with such a huge backlog it is impossible for us to work through each of these issues. We need a fresh start please, with some limits on the number of cases each editor may bring forward for alterations a month or how many cases may be outstanding at a time.

All of the old cases need closing and archiving please. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let us now archive this page. As for cases being brought here, let's set the limit at zero cases per day. This page is defunct. It is a menace to Wikipedia, simply attacting banal debate. No one should be looking to remove or add British Isles just for the sake of it. To do so violates the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The term can be added or deleted by unbiased editors as they develop articles. Surely that is sufficient. LevenBoy (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree that the current debates should be archived, but there is clearly a reason for having this page (there should be no need, put that ship has long sailed) I do think that a restriction on the number of new articles listed by an editor may need to be considered so as to discourage "hunting" for the term. Codf1977 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
The page is here, fact. While it is here it should be used for the purpose it was set up for, which is to civily discuss the merits or otherwise of individual cases. If you don't think it should exist then I'm sure there is somewhere else you can take your objections to. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've archived everything that hasn't been commented on for a month. At least the page should load faster now. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you that does load a lot quicker yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it make sense to summarise those articles which have been resolved as a series of one line header records? I think there is an argument to say that once one is settled it should be left alone. --Snowded TALK 02:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Celtic Christianity

Resolved
 – I appreciate the comments from JohnBod and Cuchullain. I'm struggling to see any agreement between them, however, and I'm not convinced there's a clear consensus among "lay" editors (i.e. the regulars here) either. I'd like to see more input from Talk:Celtic Christianity regulars, if that's at all possible. TFOWR 14:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Cuchullain's amended the lead to refer to the "Celtic-speaking world" - an extremely practical solution IMHO. TFOWR 18:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The first senetence states Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity refers broadly to the Christianity of Britain and Ireland. This should be British Isles rather than Britain and Ireland since the Celts were in all parts of the islands. The British Isles article states By the time of the Roman Empire, about two thousand years ago, Celts were inhabiting the islands. "Britain and Ireland" is ambiguous. What are we talking about? Does it include the IoM or whatever else? British Isles, on the other hand, is quite clear. LevenBoy (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

SOunds good. Have you a reliable source that would verify your contention? Fmph (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Seems like a reasonable alteration. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
As Fmph says. A reliable source would do it. Jack 1314 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should find a source for what it says already? LevenBoy (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Can't see anything, but I'll ask at the Celtic Christianity article talk page. Jack 1314 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Britain and Ireland is hardly ambiguous. It refers to two islands. It's common for the Celtic Church to be described in those terms since the Roman influence on Britain made it a different world from Ireland at the time. Let's leave these things to those who are concerned with the topic to decide what terms are appropriate to use rather than those concerned with pushing one set of vocabulary over another for reasons that do not have the best interest of articles at their heart.
In this circumstance, there is nothing evidently wrong with "Britain and Ireland" (it also should be left linked to the individual islands IMHO), so leave it to those writing the article to decide if it is appropriate or not. If you have a specific concern as to whether it is appropriate to the topic, raise it on the article talk page where editors invovled in writing the article can answer your queries more ably. --RA (talk) 21:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
RA, you said "Let's leave these things to those who are concerned with the topic to decide what terms are appropriate to use rather than those concerned with pushing one set of vocabulary over another for reasons that do not have the best interest of articles at their heart." - Quite! And all the articles that HighKinig submits? LevenBoy (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly, this article was an early target. In an attempt to remove British Isles we ended up with a completely incorrect statement. LevenBoy (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to comment on it. If we looked through your contributions would we find similar errors? That's the cost of the game you (plural) are playing. --RA (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I've asked the question at the article talk page. Jack 1314 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
If I remember correctly this was previously discussed and Britain and Ireland agreed - as RA says it is common to describe it that way as the Celtic Church was in effect the non-Roman elements--Snowded TALK 23:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt you do remember that correctly! What "non-Roman elements"? Celtic Christianity (not Celtic Church please) includes both ex-Romano-British and never-conquered populations, or elements, and some Anglo-Saxons too. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be normal to say the British Isles, except for Irish sensibilities; there is no other reason not to. Famously, Celtic Christianity used islands such as Iona, Lindisfarne, and Skellig Michael as major centres, and involved constant movement between all the islands, at a time when sea-travel was much easier than by land. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the history (and your examples) the strength of the Celtic tradition was in the monasteries of Ireland and the Western Islands of Scotland and then Northumbria. In fact there is no clear distinction between Ireland and Western Scotland at that time. The Romano form persisted in Wales, Cornwall and Brittany but not to the same degree and the distinctive nature of the Celtic Church comes from the non-Roman sections. With the conversion of the Anglo Saxons and the growing influence of Rome the two traditions come into conflict which is ended with the Synod of Whitby. If you check the article you will see it was previously discussed and resolved in 2008. The geographical spread of Celtic Christianity is always limited. It is interesting (referencing back to some work I did in the 70s on this) that the Welsh Anglican tradition retained some Orthodox practices but we couldn't find a link between that and the Monastic tradition of Ireland/Western Scotland other than some disputes over Easter. --Snowded TALK 00:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Not really. We know a lot more about Northumbria & Ireland because we have sources, above all Bede, though he was Anglo-Saxon and anti-Celtic Christianity in many ways, and far more surviving ruins, illuminated manuscripts etc. We know far less about the possibly larger Welsh monasteries, which have disappeared under later buildings. The attempt to distinguish between late Romano-British Christianity & Celtic Christianity is so hopeless that historians do not attempt it. Even if what you said were true, & some of it isn't, why would that favour the use of "Britain and Ireland"? Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the larger Welsh Monasteries did persist into the 13th C in semi-independent form and there is little or no evidence of a distinctive celtic form in what material does exist or was reported at the time. If you look at material on Anglo-Welsh disputes from the 11thC to the 13thC where the Welsh Abbots were often mediators no reference is made . At the Synod of Whitby the dispute is now about Britain (not the British Isles) and specifically between the Ionian and Roman traditions with Northumberland the most prominent player. Celtic Christianity is distinctly Irish in nature and the Roman Celts are dealing with Irish Pirates as much as Saxon ones from the 5thC. It then spreads to Scotland and Northumbria (via Iona) which was itself a distinct Kingdom at the time. Overlaying a phrase which does not come into active use for some centuries after the Synod of Whitby is I think in error. It also perpetuates a pre-saxon myth which was one of the worst aspects of the Celtic Revival a century or so ago. --Snowded TALK 00:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
British Watcher is right below, but we are talking about a far earlier period. Afaik no one has ever suggested the monks from Bangor (whichever one it was) Bede reported at the Battle of Chester, or the British bishops Augustine talked to were not part of Celtic Christianity! Even 30 years ago. Remember Patrick was a British Celt who had to "deal with" Irish Piracy. Trust me, I have no leaning to Celtic Revivalism. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand how any of that has anything to do with if British Isles should be said in the sentence in question. The fact is Celtic Christianity was spread throughout the British Isles, it was not just restricted to the two big islands. Many sources can be provided showing celtic Christianity being talked about relating to the British Isles or areas that are part of the British isles but not the islands of Great Britain and Ireland. There for British Isles is surely the most reasonable term to use considering the shared history of these islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Far be it for a Welshman not to wish to avenge the monks of Bangor is y Coed (It is that one with the pretty bridge now thankfully bypassed, not the one on the Menai) or deny the origins of Patrick, but the fact remains that other than Northumberland Celtic Christianity has little presence in Saxon England and further that Celtic Christianity was dominated by the Irish Monasteries (of which Iona was in effect a part). Interesting discussion apart, in 2008 when it was looked into the references in the main used Britain and Ireland which is a more meaning phrase in that period anyway. British Isles as a distinct term really starts (ironically) with the Tudors. So its probably best to settle this based on what authoritative histories of the Celtic Church use. I'd also raise the general point that articles which have been resolved either way should really be laid to rest as far as this subject goes. --Snowded TALK 02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well it was your project that asked the question! Which Bangor it was is a matter of pure supposition, and Northumbria is a very different animal from Northumberland. What we know of Celtic Christianity is certainly dominated by Irish monasticism, but that is because we know vastly more about it (though still not much); at the time things may have seemed very different. You seem inclined to deny Welsh (and presumably Cornish etc) Christianity at the time should be called Celtic at all, which is not a mainstream position. "British Isles" is a geographic term, so when it first came into use seems wholly irrelevant. The geographical names used in recent historical writing on the subject will often be affected by political sensitivities, but there is no reason to divide up the archipelago in discussing the subject, and attempts to do are strained. The use of Insular art, Insular script etc is now standard for just this reason. Where are these 2008 discussions? Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not denying Welsh and Cornish aspects of Celtic Christianity at all, but I am acknowledging that the term is primarily Irish (which at that time includes Western Scotland). The term is only really used for the post Roman Period so it never applied to England other than parts of Northumbria (and yes I do know the difference). It is in fact misleading to use British Isles for that reason, possibly Britain and Ireland as well. British Isles should be a purely geographical term but it has also been (and is also in the case of Wikipedia) used as a political term. Hence my suggestion that, interesting discussion aside, we should be looking to see what geographical terms are used by authoritative literature in the field. I am warming to the idea of a more geographically precise definition of its area of influence as a different way round the problem. --Snowded TALK 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
PS, I thought the "is y Coed" issue had now been resolved given archeological evidence, its a half memory so I wouldn't want to go to court on it. --Snowded TALK 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
If you are saying Ireland "at that time includes Western Scotland", it is hard to see how the present phrasing can be maintained! I think you will have great trouble getting "a more geographically precise definition of its area of influence" of the kind you seem to want accepted by the editors at the article, as you would your assertion that "the term is primarily Irish". For a start the "area of influence" changes considerably between different dates. Johnbod (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not wild about the present phasing either as its not precise and I'll happily defend the position on Western Scotland and the dominance of shall we say the origins and derivatives of Iona in what we now understand as Celtic Christianity. I think what this is showing is that British Isles or Britain and Ireland as they would be understood today are sort of the wrong terms full stop. I will think on it today - a session on Gender Equality for the EU in Latvia should tune my brain in nicely! --Snowded TALK 07:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "Britain and Ireland" is preferable to "British Isles", since any definition of "Celtic Christianity" revolves around practices that were common to both Britain and Ireland specifically, not simply those that occurred anywhere in the British Isles. That is, practices common in the Irish church but not attested in (Brythonic) Britain are not really examples of "Celtic Christian practice" (and vice versa). To look at some sources, this one (p. 431-) notes that "Celtic Christianity" denotes features claimed to be common to "the Celtic-speaking countries". It quickly goes into the debate over the usefulness of the term, pointing out that there isn't all that much that that was common across the board, but it does note that there are some traditions common on both sides of the Irish Sea. The best definition is in this book (p. 4). It describes "Celtic traditions" as those found in both the Irish and British churches, not simply those found in one or the other (here the "British church" is that of the Britons specifically, and "Irish church" includes the whole area of Irish influence in Scotland and northern Britain). All this said, I think our definition needs tweaking in general; that might help to resolve the "British Isles" vs "Ireland and Britain" dispute.--Cúchullain t/c 13:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

given that should it not be Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity refers broadly to the Christianity of the British and Irish churches ? Codf1977 (talk)
To go by Corning's definition, yes. However I would prefer something broader and simpler for the introduction, like the Koch definition. Unlike Corning we don't only discuss the things that were actually common to both the British and Irish, we also discuss things that various people thought were common - opposition to "Rome", focus on the monasteries, etc.--Cúchullain t/c 15:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Either work for me --Snowded TALK 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Can this be summarized as "closed with no change"? The topic of the Celtic Church concerned non-Roman elements and refers broadly, or is attributable, to the British and Irish churches. --HighKing (talk) 09:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

a clearer close would be "Change to "British and Irish churches" Codf1977 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
agreed--Snowded TALK 11:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Update

Cuchullain has rewritten the lead:

Celtic Christianity or Insular Christianity refers broadly to certain features of Christianity that were common, or held to be common, across the Celtic-speaking world during the Early Middle Ages.

This seems - to me - to be an extremely practical solution. Thoughts? Can we mark this {{resolved}}? TFOWR 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we can mark it as resolved. I imagine Cuchullain knows what they are doing being as they are one of the contributers to that article. Jack 1314 (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
TFOWR - I do think this one is resolved, its actually the second time its come up if you look in the past. Notices have been placed on the article itself and they have gained some comments, generally to support Britain and Ireland which is the most common use in the literature (something that has carried forward to the modern day). --Snowded TALK 18:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I suspect the debate may continue at Talk:Celtic Christianity, but that's their concern, and seems to cover the article itself rather than the lead. We can always return to this if they reach a consensus there that affects the lead, or otherwise impacts on us here. TFOWR 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the resolved tag. TFOWR marked is as such, and if LevenBoy disagrees he can simply open a new section or sub-section, but he shouldn't edit TFOWR's closures as it leaves a mistaken impression that it wasn't looked at or marked as resolved. --HighKing (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Objection to Resolved

Sorry, not resolved (and not "cool"). I've removed the Resolved tag - hope you don't mind. As I mentioned at the article talk page, the lead has been rewritten with the express intention of avoiding terms that a minority find objectionable. This is just not on. LevenBoy (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. This article has been 'Britain and Ireland' for many months. You proposed a change to BI which got some support but did not achieve consensus. Editors involved in the page got involved and have recently one has made a bold change which so far has support. I don't see you contributing to that. --Snowded TALK 19:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. That's what BISE is for. Change was proposed and failed to find a consensus. What's more, the content experts not participating here also agree. --HighKing (talk) 21:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Germanic Europe

Resolved
 – BI should not have been removed, editor notified. TFOWR 14:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Newish editor replacing BI with "Britain and Ireland". Reverted, informed user about this page, brought here for discussion. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Good find. There is no justification for the removal of British Isles in this case, it appears in a list with "Scandinavia and Continental Europe". Those are geographical locations, so British Isles fits in perfectly BritishWatcher (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. An unsourced and unjustified change. --HighKing (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Closed, reverted. --HighKing (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Atlantic Bronze Age

Resolved
 – Keep BI. Editor notified. TFOWR 14:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As above with this edit - I think this also is one for discussion, will ask the user at his talk page to revert pending the outcome of discussions here. Codf1977 (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. No justification for the British Isles to be removed in this case. This applies throughout the British Isles and the sentence is not just of countries.
This should be reverted and discuss more, but i am not going to be supporting British Isles removal in this example. There is no need. Here is one book that clearly mentions the British Isles in relation to the Atlantic Bronze age.
"Parts of the peninsula now recieved new forms of metalwork and pottery from beyond the pyrenees, and in the temperate regions of the north west these influences, coming from western France and the British Isles, mainly as a result of trade contacts, shaped a local atlantic Bronze Age which lasted far into the 1st millennium" [3] Page 87.
The British Isles should be restored to the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Another unsourced and unjustified change. --HighKing (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've notified the editor about the community's decision at ANI, and advised them to post here before any further BI changes. Obviously, as soon as I'd hit "save" I realised Black Kite had already notified them, but hey! A second voice can't hurt, right?! TFOWR 17:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Closed, reverted. --HighKing (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Spotted another removal

Resolved
 – Editor self-reverted. I believe most of us are now on the same page: raise proposals here, wait for consensus. TFOWR 14:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just spotted that an IP made two edits to the Isle of Man article earlier today, both edits removed British Isles from the text. These have been undone by an uninvolved editor as the change was clearly incorrect. Thought id just let people know. These are the edits [4] and [5] BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which is why (sign) it is so important to get this page working properly --Snowded TALK 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that user is User:Dunlavin Green. He certainly edits at 86.44.. And another one - Lough. I'm off there to revert it now. LevenBoy (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I've dropped a message on the IPs talkpage, and a similar (though more generic, less accusatory) message on Dunlavin Green's talkpage (I have no idea whether the IP and Dunlavin Green are the same, so I simply notified Dunlavin Green).
LevenBoy, thanks for raising this here. However, I would counsel against reverting in future, given the concerns expressed by the community at ANI. I'm happy to revert in circumstances like this, and Black Kite has demonstrated repeatedly that they are, too. Leaving the reverts to us avoids any appearance of impropriety (not that I'm suggesting you acted improperly here, simply that it's safest to avoid reverting when you can get a non-involved admin to do it for you ;-)
TFOWR 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bah, you tricked me - you didn't revert, did you? ;-) I'll check it out now and revert back as needed (and apologies for the suggestion that you had reverted). TFOWR 17:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
He did revert the Lough case, and rightly so. The IP should not have removed British Isles a few days ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I was only commenting on the IoM edits. Regardless of the rightiness or wronginess of reverting, it's going to be less dramah if everyone raises it here (which LevenBoy did) and leaves the reverting to Black Kite or me - or even someone from "the other side". This wasn't a criticism of the way LevenBoy handled this - raising it here was absolutely the right thing to do, and reverting (had LevenBoy reverted...) would have been fine, too. It's simply advice to avoid drama. TFOWR 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

List of mythological places

Resolved
 – Let's not drag France into the BI debate... ;-) TFOWR 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow i have just seen the huge edit war that has taken place at List of mythological places. Admin attention is needed there, but it is clear that the original fault lays with the removal of British Isles on 28 June 2010. British Isles should be restored to this article until further debate on the subject is held. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

British Isles is still there BW, check it out. Triton is claiming France as a possible location for Avalon and I have questioned the source, I am also trying to get him to respect WP:BRD and more generally WP:NPA. --Snowded TALK 19:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Aghhh i see sorry, i just looked at the history of that article and all the back and forward over BI looked scary, thought it was just continuing. I agree with you, France should not be listed there. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thats OK! All help appreciated --Snowded TALK 19:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
As I pointed out at the time to MidnightBlueMan/SpongerJack not even the Avalon article makes a claim about BI and I have been unable to find one either. Bjmullan (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Its an interesting one - we really need a collective name that covers the brythonic or P-celtic areas. Its the area where the Arthurian legends are situated, although campaigns into England and France are there in various sources and some in Ireland, the main locations are all brythonic. --Snowded TALK 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Late aside for Snowded - there's a whole raft of Arthurian legend in Scotland, up among the q-Celts. According to them, Arthur is Scottish (or even Scots. Definitely not a Pict:).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
There has certainly always been a Scottish association with the Arthurian legend.[6] Jack 1314 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't recall it ever being said that Avalon was in France, but virtually anything is possible in the plethora of nutty books on the subject. If in doubt, just visit one of the large bookshops in Glastonbury and check out the Arthur sections - a gazillion different interpretation. Also of course Arthur is often said to have done battle in France and the Brittany connections. As for BI - can't recall if Arthur is not mentioned anywhere in the whole of the BI - there are loads of placenames in Scotland that allude to the legend system in different ways. Isn't that also true of Ireland? And then there is of course this! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The tourism value of a claim is high; enough said ... --Snowded TALK 10:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Da dah! I've just discovered a nutty book [7] that makes exactly the French claim to Avalon. Thank goodness. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That is the one that was used and I challenged it as dubious, from which flowed the tale ....--Snowded TALK 10:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
OK. I'm sure we will all defend Arthur's honour as a fine British gentleman to the last man. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, Franks and Anglo-Saxons not welcome --Snowded TALK 10:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You are a winder-upper sometimes Snowded! We are all Britons anyway - at least genetically! I'll wager aome of my ancestors lived in the next village to yours and drank at the same mead-bar. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You are not seriously making an Anglo-Saxon claim to Arthur are you James? Of course us Romano-celts were more into wine than mead, but I will admit to Viking blood in my ancestry --Snowded TALK 11:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Posh Anglo-Saxons had wine in the 7th and 8th centuries in Canterbury and York, according to Current Archaeology reports over the last couple of years. So it could have been a wine bar as well. On Arthur, no, I am not claiming that he was AS. I'm also not pretending that any of us moderns are pure British, pure AS, pure Picts or whatever. Genetics clearly and repeatedly demonstrates that nearly everyone throughout mainland UK is a mixture but primarily related through male lines to ultimate ethnic locals. With smatterings of attractive foreign-ness depending on where you live. My lot are probably anglo-celto-dano-romano-hiberno-judaeo-jutes. Hope this is clear. Oh by the way, I am 1/16th Irish and at least a bit Jewish and Spanish to boot, whilst we are getting personal. And my own personal fave Arthur theory is Rodney Castleden's that he was from Cornwall. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Concur with Kernow, although Caerleon is in there somewhere, but just as a marker, the Oppenheimer stuff on genetics is controversial --Snowded TALK 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Some of my ancestors were too busy fighting alongside Calgacus and the like to drink in mead-bars. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Tough lot, the Pictii. But are you Scotii or Pictii Jack? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL. I can see where this is going James. Well, as Kenneth MacAlpin was King of the Picts (some say the first King of Scotland) and his dynasty produced the Kings of Scotland, then he and his descendants would be both, though obviously the name Pict would no longer apply. The same thing would apply to the general populace. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You're reaching Jack. I bet you're lot were Irish like most Scots. Are you a lowlander? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Dalriada combined with Pictland became Scotland, so all us native Scots do have Irish blood in us. I'm a Glaswegian James, but only a third generation Glaswegian. I have Irish grandparents and a grandparent from the Scottish Highlands. I'll send a blood sample on to you if you want the evidence. ;) Jack 1314 (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No, that's OK Jack, my lab is on the island where I stroke my white cat, but I'm in Derbyshire at the mo, so don't have access. Anyway, wasn't there some gene-testing across the lowlands not long ago (I seem to recall it was on the BBC) that demonstrated close genetic relations between lowland Scots and most people in England and also Ireland? I think you'll find that Anglo-Saxon, Norman and subsequent conquests diluted all that Dal Riathanism and distant Pictish forbearishness. Shame really as it's a nice story. Studies have also shown by the way that most people in Northern Scotland are similarly mixed - even "seperate" Orkney and Lewis have only slight variations of Danish and local varieties. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, those nasty Anglo-Saxons invaded all of Scotland didn't they? I'm sure my Scottish/Pictish ancestor didn't share a mead with your Anglo-Saxon ancestor, but I'm not one to bear a grudge over your ancestors invading parts of Scotland. So if your ever in Glasgow I'll stand you a mead. Jack 1314 (talk) 12:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Can we summarize this as "closed, reverted" with the argument that references should meet WP:VS. --HighKing (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This can be closed, the dispute was not related to British Isles. It was just a former warzone over it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:British_Isles_Terminology_task_force/Specific_Examples/Closed3&oldid=1190235764"