Talk:British Isles/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Get a Grip!

Get a grip, folks! This article is not too long and is not POV. The controversy is, however, grossly overstated in this article, making it a far from encyclopedic offering. There should not be a reference to it in the lead paragraph, so I've taken it out. Heavens above, there's a whole section about it later on. That is enough. Stop your edit warring. CarterBar (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know that the controversy is "grossly overstated"? The references say what they say. Also, the controversy caused a whole content fork in the past and now it´s "overstated" to mention it in the introduction? That's ridiculous. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's overstated to mention it in the introduction because it's not a key point about the British Isles, which these days is a purely geographic name. Only put key points in the intro, non-key points may be seen to be pushing a particular point-of-view when included so early on in the article. By all means have a section about the controversy, but that should be sufficient. Anyway, someone has already come along and undone all my edits, so it seems like the "enthusiasts" here just won't take no for an answer. Says a lot for Wikipedia really. I'm wondering if I've come to the right place. 86.27.184.206 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC) --- Sorry, this comment was me, forgot to log in. CarterBar (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh how very wrong you are here. The name of this article is, far and away, the key point of this entire article. Nothing is as important as the name. Everything else is incidental. The British have been imposing their identity on Ireland for far too long. This is more of the same. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"British Isles, which these days is a purely geographic name." Interesting admission. When did the "British Isles" stop being a political term? Was there some announcement? Sarah777 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It never was a political term. Except to those who seek to turn it into one. TharkunColl (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It is of course a political term; I was just a bit surprised to read CarterBar admitting that it was. Sarah777 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I assure you it is not a political term - not for the vast majority of people who use it. But in order to object to it, you must first pretend that it is a political term, otherwise your objection has no justification whatsoever. TharkunColl (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, British Isles is both a geographic & political term. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thark, if it had no political implications/overtones why would anybody object to it? That is like saying a large number of Irish people would collectively decide that "Australia" was a political term just so that they could then object to it! Meaningless. Sarah777 (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is simply the result of a mistaken assumption, namely that "British" refers to the state known as the UK. In fact it's a much older word, and originally referred to those we would now call Celts ("Celt" is a modern term, of course). In the 17th century the English objected to being called British, a term appropriated by the Scottish Stuart dynasty. Cromwell's regime avoided the term British entirely, because they associated it with the deposed monarchy. From a much earlier time the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has accounts of battles between the English and the British. By accepting the term "British" for themselves by the beginning of the 18th century, the English were making a pretty big compromise. TharkunColl (talk) 18:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
"I think it is simply the result of a mistaken assumption, namely that "British" refers to the state known as the UK." Given the kind of issues that I deal with and work I do, I quite often encounter people who argue for including Irish people and things under a tag of British or Brit who justify this with "they are from the British Isles." This is not a mistaken assumption on their part that British refers to the U.K. This is from an assumption that geographic terms that happen to exist in the language can be used to define identity. In other words, even geography is not purely geographic. Do you consider it "mistaken" to call Irish people British "because they are from the British Isles"?
"...originally referred to those we would now call Celts..." It pressumably referred to certain tribes of what we would now call Celts, who may or may not have had anything (or something very limited) to do with Ireland.
"By accepting the term "British" ... the English were making a pretty big compromise." That's interesting as far as English history goes, but I don't know what it has to do with Ireland. The Irish are under no obligation to make such a compromise, if that is what it was. Nuclare (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if the Irish make that "compromise" at all. If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name (see Derry). The population of the UK outnumbers that of Southern Ireland by about 15 to 1. TharkunColl (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
What has a country that existed in 1922 got to do with this? Thanks to the Irish diaspora the numbers are much more equal in number of both nationalities. (As much as hate to admit it) Derry is not the name of Derry. In its charter Londonderry is its official name. As British and Irish governments refuse to use to use the term British Isles you could say its officially (de facto) not the name of this Archipelago.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A country that has existed since 1922 has nothing to do with it, for the simple reason that states don't make language. The Irish "diaspora" makes no difference at all. As any dictionary will confirm, "British Isles" is the standard designation. TharkunColl (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The country Ireland and Irish people have been here for longer than since 1922! You called it Southern Ireland. That's about as up to date as naming Turkey the Ottoman Empire. A dictionary that states the British Isles as the name is more than likely reasonably outdated. Dictionaries that have been recently published refer to 'these isles'. Folens also republishing their books suggest the change in use of name. Nearly every modern map or atlas refers to it as Britain and Ireland.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Thankun said: "If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name..." -- Except the dispute is about what constitutes this "place" in the first place. You are setting the boundaries and then, big surprise!, claiming a majority based on YOUR boundaries. In any event, your 15:1 statement assumes that the issue divides by that mythical land you call "Southern Ireland" vs. everyone in the UK, which, clearly, it wouldn't. Nuclare (talk) 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The boundaries are set by geography. And the people who use the term, use it to include the whole of Ireland. You're right of course to say that the controversy doesn't actually divide along the Ulster border. As we know, for example, many people in Southern Ireland use the term. TharkunColl (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"The boundaries are set by geography." It's geography that includes the Channel Islands, then? And it was geography (without politics) that lead to the championing of the term's use in the 17th century? The Scottish kings weren't actually kings at all, but vague blobs called Geography? You're rather free with your use of the word "many" there in regards to that mystical place "Southern Ireland." (Contrary to your own claims about naming, you also seem to have no qualms about naming even places you don't live and where you wouldn't be a majority if you did.) Your so-called Ulster border is hardly the only thing that works against your 15:1 claim. How about people of Irish ancestry in GB? Do they all fall into your 15 side? How about those in GB who currently use the term BI to not include Ireland? There are certainly some of those. How about all those in GB who don't use the term at all, or don't care if it's continued to be used, or don't care if it includes Ireland or not? How many is that? Nuclare (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on consensus. I thought you knew that! 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Great, 'If a majority of people in a place call it by a certain name, then that's its name' can we now get the EU to change Britain's current name from the Commonwealth of England to European Union? By the logic of the "British Isles" brigade this is perfectly reasonable; those English being a mere minority in the commonly accepted place, the European Union. It is about time this article was merged into European Union. If it continues I want my distinct cabbage patch that is overgrowing into my neighbour's farm in the far corner of the field to have its own wikipedia article just like "British Isles". 86.42.124.125 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What a ridiculous thing to say. The fact that Ireland is part of the British Isles does not mean it is no longer called Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, wait a minute. I think the IP is on to something important here. Any names for places in the UK should be the name used by most Europeans in the EU or in Europe following the reasoning of the "British Isles" supporters. Not sure if that leads to any useful suggestions - what do the Germans call La Manche? Sarah777 (talk) 08:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, wrong. We are only talking about the English language here, because this is the English language Wikipedia. The foreign language terms are put in the lead by Wikipedia convention, but only the native ones. And I don't give a toss which Irish Gaelic version is used as long as we only use one. TharkunColl (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Please keep WP:CIVIL at the forefront of your mind Thark. Have you any references for this "native" concept you keep referring to? I'd like to examine them. Sarah777 (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a well known Wikipedia convention, but I can't be bothered to look it up. Any place gets its English name (if it has one), and its native name or names. Since Irish Gaelic is a language native to the British Isles, it's included. TharkunColl (talk) 09:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I take can't be bothered to look it up as another way of saying "I made it up". Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Straw Poll for the Lead Paragraph

After the discussions last week where it appears that a consensus formed around the lead paragraph (my opinion), we're back to what looks like another edit war. Perhaps, at this point in time, a straw poll is required to test consensus. I suggest a number of polls for each contentious item.

This is not a straw poll to see what straw polls we require. Just that there are a number of edits that seems to continue back and forth ad nauseum and the article is a mess and unstable as a result.

  • I believe we need a poll on how to phrase the sentence relating to the term being controversial - the use of the word many etc is causing a difference of opinion.


I hope we don't need a poll on the translations. But...

  • Irish terms/translations used. DO we really need 3? Is one enough? Perhaps 2 is a compromise?

If there's a general agreement for a straw poll, let's get it started. If people feel that this can be worked out without an edit war or any more page protections, etc, then I'd prefer that route. --Bardcom (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking this to an RFC on the page then - if necessary - further. I cannot believe what I'm seeing on this page. Wikipedia depends on verifiability and reputable sources. We have reputable sources saying EXACTLY what went in the introduction. Anyone denying this and deleting references is a vandal. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There is now an entry on the RFC page for history and geography articles. [1]. There seems to be some problem with the auto-function on the RFC pages, so the RFC has to be added manually. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that a straw poll is not a good idea and that an RfC is more appropriate, or are you suggesting a parallel approach is taken, or what? Since wikipedia is not a democracy, etc etc etc, why do you believe an RfC is required, and do you believe an RfC will fix the problem? --Bardcom (talk) 11:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the present state of the article places undue weight on the alleged controversy. I do not think we should write the article to placate the minority viewpoint. Three translations to Irish are too many too. --John (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Given such a wrongheaded and provocative intervention as that John I presume you will not be supporting your Anglo-pov with your Admin powers? I think that last contribution illustrates perfectly the Wiki-problem with its dominant Anglo-centric ghetto mentality. I would have thought that someone as experienced as you would realise the folly of using redundant political terms in a geographical context. Sarah777 (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
This Irish born and bred editor agrees with John, thinks there's nothing particulary Anglo-centric about his views, and wonders how some Irish editors think they have the power to speak for all Irish editors. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 18:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Watch WP:CIVIL Bastun. Please show me where I claim to speak for all Irish editors? And what has your nationality got to do with this? You - in my opinion - have also got an Anglo-centric minority viewpoint so I don't know how you'd think I'm claiming to speak on your behalf. I'm solely interested in ensuring we improve this article by ensuring it written from a neutral point of view - and I see John's comments as good faith (but inadvertent) acknowledgment that he doesn't grasp the WP:NPOV concept. Sarah777 (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be great if we could get the lead paragraph sorted first. It's smaller, and I believe that if the lead paragraph was stable and agreed by consensus, the article would settle down. --Bardcom (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I think a Merge with the fork article (the BI dispute article) will have to happen at some point. The forks existence (and he wikilinks to it) are messing with the overall weight' on how the issue is presented. I am trying to prepare case to show how the evidence for the word "many" do not collectively carry 'due weight' - I hope we can develop from it. I have decided to put up the merger proposal template between the fork and here. Any objections? We surely need to focus on one article rather than juggle between lines here and there - we will never get it right then imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Watch WP:CIVIL yourself Sarah. With respect, I think anyone who disagrees with you is likely to be labelled as having a pro-Anglo viewpoint. Without getting into that whole area (which is actually the antithesis of AGF), it seems to me that having three translations in Irish (355,000 fluent or native speakers), and one in English (0.5–1.8 billion speakers), is just a little bit out of proportion. --John (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
John, I have no views at all on how many translations there should be. It was your statement that the opening placed undue weight on the alleged (sic) controversy and your references to that I found provocative and unhelpful. Also your suggestion that dealing with the articles main problem in an open way constitutes writing the article to placate the minority viewpoint. Are you claiming that only a minority are interested in upholding the principle of WP:NPOV? And while we're all at it might I ask that you, too, pay more heed to WP:CIVIL? Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why we need to have the names for the islands in Celtic languages in the lead. Wikipedia is not a language dictionary. If it's really important to this article's demographic to have them, have 'em in another section. They are atm, besides being of extremely limited encyclopedic value, cluttery; add to that they cause controversy ... well ... zap 'em! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Deacon has a point, people. Afterall, this is the English language Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I dunno about the Welsh ones but the Gaelic terms, as with so many terms in the modern languages, are neologisms based on translating the English phrase. Oileáin Iarthair Eorpa and Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór do not translate as "British Isles", but as "Islands of Western Europe" and "Ireland and Great Britain" and are presumably an attempt to describe the islands employing alternate usage rather than reflecting common usage. As far as my own [historical] knowledge goes, "real Irish" just called them the "islands", as the experience of Irish speakers was never in general broad enough to require such specificity. If these were genuine alternate usages of historical depth then they'd be important perhaps, but they aren't. So ... with more strenght ... zap 'em. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Zap 'em. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Far from zapping them we need to add many more to this article. The Wiki Manual of Style for Irish-related articles specifies an Irish language version be supplied and as you folk are claiming that "British Isles" is an Ireland-related article I'll need some help adding the Irish name for the Isle of Wight; Guernsey, Shetlands etc etc. Any Irish scholars out there can help me with this urgent work? Sarah777 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
British Isles is certainly Ireland-related as Ireland (whichever definition you use, island or state) is within, and forms a substantial part of, the British Isles. Ireland is not within Guernsey or the Isle of Wight; those subjects are not Ireland-related. Similarly, the articles on the Earth, Solar System and Milky Way don't need Irish translations since, although those entities contain Ireland, Ireland isn't a substantial part of them. It's worth noting that the MOS you refer to doesn't define what is meant by "Ireland related"; perhaps it should, to avoid such confusion (although I think a bit of common sense is all that's really needed) Waggers (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe use this, http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/British_Isles, as a template. It seems pretty well done, and POV-free to boot. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion on the Citizendium Talk page: someone just wrote it all without leaving any discussion! This is actually typical of CZ - it only has a small number or editors and a few thousand articles (too many of them very poor). I joined it for around a week when I was fed up with this place, and was quite shocked by how bad it was, so resigned! I thought the editors there would be a higher quality at least - but they are not at all: too many people who couldn't get past consensus here, I think. Inaccurate stuff can stay on CZ for ages without getting attended to, as the 'bigger' editors (who all seem to know each other) are hugely over-worked trying to increase the article count.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. But I was talking about the article. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Scary Stuff!!, http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=118&x_article=1485 78.19.213.117 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Harmless really - but I do like the observation "many of the administrators — who can be thought of as "editors with friends" since they are elected by other editors to a position of more power and authority — selectively use these policies to promote their own biases." Touché! Sarah777 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's move this forward. One Irish translation and move the stuff about the controversy out of the lead. Agreed? --John (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes to the single translation, so long as it isn't Na hOileáin Bhriotanacha (which is merely a literal translation of the misnomer into Irish). But a big NO to moving the problem with the article out of the lead. Sarah777 (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
On the translations, there are apparently several translations. If the English Channel was variously called "La Manche" and "Le Canal Anglais" in French, which translation would you pick? How would you decide?
On the controversy, John's contribution is typical.."in my opinion". Funny that recent histories on the British Isles, maps, atlases, have a different opinion but the opinion and actions of major publishers apparently don't matter if they don't match editor's opinion. Scary....and he's apparently an admin too. Remember, Oxford histories, Cambridge histories, National Geographic, apparently now Collins, Reader's Digest, Michelin, etc.,etc.,etc have either described the term as offensive or have just downright stopped using it....but John knows more. Just a mystery HOW he knows more since - again - not a single reference is produced suggesting that the objections are "from a tiny minority". The Irish govt has described it as a misnomer since at least 1947....but John doesn't care. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of how to resolve the 3RR complaint

User:Wotapalaver opened this 3RR complaint against Matt Lewison onthe 3RR noticeboard. As an admin who was hoping to close this complaint, I saw a number of unappealing options, and decided that actually solving the edit war was the highest priority. My plan is to close the 3RR complaint without any blocks if the participants can agree on a compromise text of the article. If no agreement can be found, I suggest that some combination of article bans (of specific editors) and 1RR restriction (for everyone) should be imposed for the rest of May. After you have read the text linked above, the discussion continues here. Please comment below on how you think the 3RR case should be resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because restricting anon IPs really works... Matt Lewis and I both reverted a SPA anon IP who has a very clear bias (see the BI talk page, where s/he talks of British genocide, etc.), whose edit summary claimed to be reverting an incorrect translation (which is disputed in itself), but whose edit was also including other PoV changes to the article. Editors are supposed to do that. Appreciate your good-faith attempt at a solution, EdJohnston, but personally I'm not in agreement. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because of the "British genocide" in Ireland, many Irish people feel a deep insult to have the word British conferred on them, therefore the lines about "disputed". These are facts Bastun, don't shoot the messenger. The Irish translation is neologism, and is not standard, whatever the ref. 78.19.213.117 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment on the facts: referring to "British genocide" may or may not be appropriate wherever the IP used it (I don't know) but is manifestly NOT "very clear bias" - no more than dislike of the Holocaust can be called anti-German bias. The above tells us more about Bastun's POV than it does about the IPs! Sarah777 (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I find the proposed solution inappropriate. Matt Lewis (and others) are deleting text that is PRACTICALLY A VERBATIM QUOTE OF REPUTABLE SOURCES LIKE OXBRIDGE, ROUTLEDGE, MACMILLAN, NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, etc., because he doesn't like what they say, no matter who puts the text there. As for me, I've tried several different variants of the text, have added references, and Matt Lewis just reverts. I've gotten input from the Reputable Sources noticeboard that the text I am entering is reasonable, other editors have said the same. The text I am proposing is basically the same as was on the article until very recently when Matt Lewis (and TharkunColl) started being unreasonable. There can be no debate about the validity of the content that WAS on the article until recently and no debate that the text I'm trying to put BACK in the article is valid either. If Wikipedia admins can't tell the difference between text that has support of verifiable sources and someone who wants text that reflects their own bias then there´s a BIG problem. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
PLease don't exaggerate - I've spent countless hours in various Talks over this since the end of last year (I'm embarrassed to toll it up). I talk and talk, but am generally ignored. I will go throgh your example one by one this weekend I promise. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Interesting idea, EdJohnston. Your plan would require clarification: would it be necessary for all four editors to agree before any of them would be freed from the ban? Or would two editors, one from each "side", agreeing on a compromise be freed? Would they be restricted to 1RR for this article only, as opposed to all articles? "Delayed 3RR block" would be better worded "delayed editwarring block", as I think not all the editors mentioned violated 3RR. However, I think that implementation of a ban would require community consensus, perhaps discussion at WP:AN/I; see WP:Banning policy.
Especially since some didn't violate 3RR, restricting them from even non-controversial edits to the page seems unnecessarily restrictive. One alternative would be to restrict the five editors to 0RR on the article instead of an article ban.
A simpler solution would be to just put the article under 1RR for the rest of the month. Again, I suppose community consensus would be required.
I see that there's a fair amount of discussion on the article talk page and I hope it will lead to solutions.
Wolapalaver, if one version is clearly more acceptable than another, then a remedy such as EdJohnston proposes will probably allow the more acceptable version to become established. Article content is decided by consensus among editors; admins are not arbitrators of article content. The arguments you give above belong on the article talk page. Bastun, even if good-faith edits are unconstructive, repeatedly reverting them is still editwarring. (non-admin opinion) Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for the record, my first revert was made on RC patrol and the second was because the reason I was given for the "dubious" tag being there (that the Gaelic name translated to "British Islands" instead of "British Isles") is totally crazy because Gaelic does not have separate words for "isles" and "islands". I do not care what the article looks like, so you don't need to ban me from it. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind on the outcome (on what EdJohnston is suggesting) - having unintentionally 3RR'd I'm just happy I wasn't given the ban. I'm planning to go through the evidence on the "many Irish" issue this weekend, so will basically keep up the Talk regardless of what happens. I won't be editing the article itself until I have conclusively argued all my points - I certainly won't 3RR again. Hopefully we will then have a solution on the "British Isles" debate that people can support. I suspect it will involve a merger with the "dispute" page: it is too un-WP to maintain such a fork, and its existence just adds to the weight problem imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment A straw poll to test consensus will be carried out on the Talk Page with the intention of agreeing and accepting an opening paragraph. I propose that if any edit warring takes place on the lead paragraph afterwards, then a ban would be appropriate. I don't believe that Matt intentionally 3RRed, and while he may have strong opinions and occasionally act aggressively, he appears to act in good faith. He is not a vandal. Also, it's crazy to suggest a ban of Bastun - one of the calmest and learned editors on this topic. In summary, don't bans, but perhaps lock the article until after the straw poll. --Bardcom (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Bardcom - you are keen to straw poll but I have explained why I don't like them (and they are not recommended by Wikipedia for various reasons) - what purpose would it serve other than for people to argue over? There are too many IPs around too. I don't like it - we need to talk, not poll. Most questions we could decide on would probably be 50/50 at the moment - but so what? We are bound to disagree on the questions too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify what you mean by "aggressive"? - I didn't appreciate reading that at all, despite what you said about me not being a vandal. It is entirely your opinion that my opinions are "strong"!. You comments here are unnecessary, unfair, and sounds like bad faith mixed in with some faint praise! I have certainly been 'tough' and persistent with my comments - but I have had to be as they usually pass without comment (aggressively ignored perhaps?). Is "toughness" what you mean by aggressive? It takes at least two to be in a dispute, and I do not see how I am an "aggressor". I don't let these kind of comments pass unchallenged certainly: I know Wikipedia too well - it is littered with these little 'personality paintings', and I've found these exaggerations about me - left by another editor - on the Talk pages I find reason to visit. Lets stick to the facts. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a reminder to everyone that, regardless of whether or not you agree to a ban, you can be blocked for edit warring even if you don't violate 3RR. If you won't agree to any restrictions, perhaps the only thing we can do is take a hardline stance on that policy.
Meanwhile, I'm thinking maybe we head for ANI with this, as it's getting a bit complex for this board. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
How do people feel if this whole thread is moved over to Talk:British Isles, since that is the Talk for the article suffering the edit war? I would change the status of the 3RR complaint to 'On hold pending discussion.' Please comment if this conclusion is acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Works for me. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 17:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
End of thread copied from WP:AN/3RR. Please add your new comments below this line. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
So what we have now is a discussion on how editors might be blocked for violating 1RR, but someone who has ALREADY violated 3RR is being "let off", apparently on the basis that he was so intent on reverting that he "forgot" how many times he had already reverted....WOW! Wotapalaver (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute tag?

Is that necessary Sarah? The term IS used, which many find annoying, and many find it annoying, which some refuse to believe - but which is very well referenced. Wotapalaver (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it not rather obvious that there is a dispute? Hence the tag. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that Matt Lewis is reverting again, yes. I have reported him for breach of 3rr. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The article was locked over this and we clearly have to discuss proposed changes! You are just carrying on in the same vein. How on earth have I 3RR'd? And who is this IP address backing you up? How have you reported me anyway? - I don't remember a warning. You can provoke and push - but without consensus you cannot get your way. You are trying to re-write the article to be a huge propaganda page for your POV! I'm being tough on weight becase you are simply spinning exaggerations. You ought to know that I have compromised already - the article I accept is OTT on the "controversy" issue as far as I'm concerned.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The same vein? If that means gathering reliable sources and trying to make the text reflect the reliable sources, then yes, I'm guilty. I went to the reliable sources noticeboard and got comment, editors from there came to the BI page and commented. That's the "same vein". In your case it means deleting text that reflects the reliable sources. As for 3rr, I counted what your own edit summaries described as reverts. Maybe I counted wrong, but I saw 4 in the last 24 hours. I put a warning on your talk page. Wotapalaver (talk) 01:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to warn me BEFORE you report me - not after. If feel like I've been stitched up by an IP address (who I wonder?), and am not happy with you at all. All you will do is get the article locked again. It is hugely in your favour already! Do you want to simply just rename this the dispute page? (which is an unashamed POV fork anyway!) - you are too greedy by far, and your examples are just not strong enough to warrant the language you use.--Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be careful with mainpage edits here - any sign of warring on pages such as this and one comes into the scope of a standing Arbcom Fatwa. They might not even bother counting to four. Could I appeal on behalf of Matt that he be allowed one bite? Sarah777 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't looking at the IP - hopefully they won't take it seriously, as warring here especially clearly helps no one. Surely Wotapalava knew what he was doing though. I'll try and get a 'point by point' criticism of the refs done over the weekend - we will have something new to get our teeth into then. I planned to have it done by now, but some banned idiot was trying to say Wales isn't a country and I got waylayed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Wales? What's that? I thought it was an English principality. I definitely think all the Paddies should go over there and shove some outsider's offensive perception upon your society. Spread your peace, so to speak. Ut sementem feeceris. 78.16.126.36 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) @Matt Lewis, you're again suggesting that the IP address and I have some sockpuppet relationship. Make a formal accusation or withdraw the suggestion. As for warning you, I went to warn you, came back to this page and found you had reverted again so did the 3RR notification. @Sarah, at this stage, since there are editors who revert supported text, I believe that some step like a formal dispute resolution is needed. This is getting ridiculous; a page of references from reputable sources and editors can still impose their own bias. Wikipedia needs to stamp them out or die. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You have never listened to the argument that a couple of the sources being "reputable" (ie Oxdridge) is simply not enough - it does not give you carte blanche to use words however you like! This is totally unprofessional - a historian should be like a detective, not a politician.
We have to apply weight in the sence of 1) the amount of sources in not cumulative - they must all be quality and compared to counter-sources. (WP:Neutrality and Verifiability (Policy)) 2) Wikipedias own encyclopedic context should outweigh that of any sources WP:No Point of View - Undue Weight (Policy) 2b) Is the source focusing on the point (ie an account of dissent is just that). 2) anachronism - the time of the quote (WIkipedia cannot present a comment of a certain time as typical of the present. 3) There 4) We cannot make it seem like the public supports the feelings of a group. 5) we must be aware of the "academic glut" - masses is published these days (many by small presses, including tracts): how is this taken up by major historians, the media, the public etc is the key. 6) Counter evidence - what is the weight of counter evidence? 6b) Ask questions if any expected evidence you would expext to back up the WP articles weight is missing? Would a term be in such use (by the BBC for example in its recent big-budget history programmes like 'Coast' and 'British Isles') if it is so disliked? Have the broadsheets picked up on it? Have evidence like Folens caused a stink or a whimper. Did Folens have public backing for the change as you might expect given the WP articles line (they didn't). 7) Use language that suits an encyclopdic article (the word "many" would simply only work on Wikipedia if the evidence is irrefutable. IT IS NOT. Consider Wikipedias place, and how in certain situations it has to be fair and get it right. 8) Question the auience: Comparatively too many people would feel the current climate in Ireland IS NOT THE TIME to stir up rancour about a 'British' past (which I've seen done in here). 9) complare other situations. Dublin was built by the British - do people complain about that? Look at other countries too. Also 10) Avoid exaggeration: Wikipdia is a neutral encyclopedia not a political manifesto. Don't pluralise single examples and exaggerate events. I've found all this across the British Isles-related Talks and articles. 11) Don't create forks and litter all the pages with a POV, bendy Wikilinks that go to forks etc, 4/5-line quotes, repetition, 'leading' language and exaggeration etc. I'm busy this weekend but as this it happening (and was partly my fault) I will definitely go through the FOR quotes one by one - I've looked at them objectively (despite constant claims I havent) and they have never equalled due weight to me - they actually always ask questions comfiming the other picture - and have generally backed-up my thoughts that today is not the climate for this, and that if you walked around Ireland looking for a "many" you would not get the interest and even the odd frown. You would have to try and whip people up somewhere imo. I would simply not be here writing this if this was an (in encyclopedic terms) "many" issue, believe me - I just wouldn't. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis, again you're obviously NOT reading the sources - or you are happy to misrepresent them. (1) The sources are quality, especially compared to the "counter-sources" since there are NO counter sources. (2) The prominence given to the objection is appropriate, since it has appeared in recent histories of the British Isles, to give one example, and NO prominence should be given to the view that objection is a "tiny minority" since that view appears nowhere except among a core of wikipedia editors who don't read the references. (2b) The sources include Histories of the British Isles by Cambridge AND Oxford presses. These are not histories of dissent, whatever that is. (3) What does "There" mean in this context? (4) We cannot do anything. The sources say "many" and "Often". It is not up to us to decide how the public feels, it is up to us to use the verifiable sources we have. (5) Academic Glut? I hope you are not describing Cambridge, Oxford, Irish broadsheets, Routledge, MacMillan, etc., as "academic glut". The other sources may not all be as eminent, but they're good. Instead of tarring all with your "glut" brush, make a specific accusation of "glut". (6) Counter evidence? Where is it? Please produce it. So far there is NONE. (6b) I would expect that many people in Britain are unaware that the term is disliked. I am not surprised that the BBC used the term, but it's also true that many map makers DO NOT USE THE TERM ANYMORE AT ALL. (7) The word many is suitable for Wikipedia because that is EXACTLY WHAT A VERIFIABLE SOURCE SAYS. (8) The time is irrelevant. If the term is offensive to people then it is offensive to people. The fact remains the same. No-one is stirring up anything anti-British. I am certainly not. (9) Dublin was built by the British?? It was founded by Vikings, expanded by Normans, ruled from England, became Irish in the 20th century and - particularly with the recent building boom - has at least been re built by the Irish (and the Poles). In any case it´s a separate subject. (10) There is no political manifesto. I've said it before, so here it is again. If the sources said "a few rabid republican wikipedia editors dislike the term" then the article shouldn't even represent such a minority point of view. The sources say that the term is "often" offensive or objectionable to "many" Irish. Maybe you've found objection to the term across all sorts of pages because lots of people object. (11) I haven´t created any forks. I haven't "littered" the page with POV. As for you, you keep saying you'll go through the sources one-by-one, but we still haven't seen it. I think you'll struggle to rubbish them on any one-by-one basis. Finally, I again don't care what you think you know about the term or it's "many" support in Ireland. I can only comment on one experience in London where I was in a mixed British/Irish group and a Londoner used the term British Isles, IIRC about cliffs in the West of Ireland being the highest in "the British Isles". One of the Irish asked him not to use that term about Ireland and no-one of the Irish group said "don't be silly". And it wasn't a group of IRA members either. The British people were ALL surprised that any Irish people didn't like the term, never mind all of one group. Other than that I look at eminent historians who say "many" and "often". Wotapalaver (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You are borderline trolling with the way you consistently exaggerate other people so you can put them down. Nobody has said it is "tiny" amount (As oppose to "many")- if you are saying the opposite of "many" is "tiny" then you are clearly a fool. You say eminent historians use the term "many" and "often" - but they actually use the term themselves for modern situations (Kearney in his "British Isles" esp): in Wikipedias context (not one of jsut focusing on dissent) that goes a long way. There is just such a dearth of examples: we can't have Wikipedia make it look like a serious movement abounds when IT DOESN'T. There is however enough going on to cover properly in the main article. The existence of the fork especially over-weights the "dissent" and am am totally unhappy about it. Wikipedia is constantly being used politically and it is quite scary.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis, I am not trolling by insisting that the references are quality and clear and I never said that the opposite of many was tiny. I said that the sources say many and often. The page of references is dominated by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Routledge (another academic press), Westview (ditto). The references in the article include two Irish broadsheets. The historians say clearly that the term is offensive/objectionable, etc to many Irish, often, etc. One calls it a solecism (look it up). The sources meet ALL of Wikipedia's quality standards. Additionally, there is NOT A SINGLE counter-source. There is no need to find any more references because the ones already there are so clear. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Not sure where you are getting the "now is not the time" notion? Now more than ever I'd say - and I live here. Prior to this, being seen to take offense at the term BI could have been conflated with supporting "violence" - so people kept their heads down. At least the more cowardly amongst us did! Sarah777 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Are these things popular in times of peace and reconciliation? The "many" statement suggests it is: I don't see the evidence. Wiser heads abound in Ireland I'm sure, and the media of weight (TV, broadsheets etc) have simply found nothing much to report either. I just object to the undue weight. I don't want to see any political pushing on WP (and I always argue when I see it) - it doesn't do anyone any good, not even the cause.--Matt Lewis (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I've actually read your very long post above. You ask for references, and they exist here -> Talk:British Isles/References. You then say that it's quality not quantity - but all the provided references *are* quality, from broadcasters, governments, and newspapers, never mind companies that make it their business to produce geographic content like atlas makers and travel/culture magazines. To present a fair and balanced situation, you have been asked for any references to counter-balance the argument put forward, which I would recommend you also place in the References section of this Talk page.
Bardcom - I have seen that link and I've talked about it a few times: When I originally read through it, I felt it tailed off (re academic weight) to the point where I felt the case for "many" being too-strong a word was even stronger after reading that list of evidence of dissent. I used to run a secondhand bookshop that had masses of texts like that passing through it: you can compile a list like that about almost anything like this. Same with the Folens example - the inherent lack of wider support reinforced my view, rather than changed it. You must understand that I approached this objectively looking for the equivalent weighted re-life evidence, to support the weight given the "dissent" on WP. I've still not seen it - but I keep seeing examples of it's uncontested use in situations that I simply believe would not naturally happen if the level of dissent you want to suggest exists actually existed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt Lewis, if it is so easy to produce a list of references like this, please produce a list of references that say the term is only objected to by a "tiny minority" in Ireland. PLEASE. As for Folens, perhaps the reason that the publishers removed the term was because as soon as it was pointed out their reaction was "oh yeah..that shouldn't be there" and they didn't need any public outrage. Perhaps the public approach in Ireland, where a vast majority of books published come from UK presses, is generally resigned annoyance where people feel there is no point in making their objection known. The Tribune story is an example of such a case. In this case an Irish publisher IMMEDIATELY removed the term. This could mean that the wider support was so obvious to the publisher that he acted as soon as the "problem" was pointed out. It could also mean there is no wider support - in which case there should have been outrage at removal of the term, and there wasn't. As for what you believe about the level of dissent - try practicing this exercise. Repeat this phrase 100 times "Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia." Wotapalaver (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"tiny" is hardly the opposite of "many"!! There is just not the interest in the subject around to lead to examples of people saying "there is no evidence that "many" Irish people find the term offensive": and it's not my burden to do so. Folens actually stated they had no complaints from parents: they said they did it to remove the possibility of a future problem (per company policy). --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
But there is enough interest for eminent authors to state that the term is offensive/objectionable to many Irish, often, etc. That's strange, isn't it? There's enough interest to say that there is a problem but not enough to say that there isn't. IIRC correctly, Folens reacted to a comment from a teacher - a geography teacher. That's what I seem to remember from the article in The Times. Again, try this phrase "Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia". Wotapalaver (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on the concept of consensus. I feel that this particular discussion has run it's course without being resolved or an acceptable solution worked out. It's time to see what consensus has formed and to test it. --Bardcom (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Time for your straw poll, you mean - I disagree. Don't think I'm too worried about the result - I just honestly think it's a really bad idea right now. Wikpedia doesn't like polls for good reasons, and I don't see what positive purpose it would serve right now.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) It's time to depend on verifiable, reputable sources. Nothing else. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

One, some, many, lots?

Can we try to avoid descriptively quantifying how many people find the term objectionable? Undoubtedly, some do, but we have no reliable source to indicate whether that's a very vocal minority (apparently all it takes is one complaint to Folens and National Geographic and it gets removed, after all), or many, or whether the vast majority never give it any thought whatsoever... I believe this has been covered lots of times before in the talk page. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 08:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well - so who complained to Collins - maybe their Irish marketing Executive?! Anyway this name game is being played by more than the Paddies; see the amazing 10 Downing Website statement that NI/England/Wales are "countries within a country" - which appeared just when the Wiki argument for such a daft claim was failing to locate reliable sources......Sarah777 (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah, for the record, I have always been sympathetic with NI, but I personally see it as a created country: I am entitled to do so, and it seems pretty obvious to me that is what it is: people were planted there who eventually became Northern Irish. George Best is an example of a Northern Irish countryman imo. I am aware that most prossibly don't see it as a country - I have no problems with that. I have no idea how long NI will last - if the UK dissolves what would happen? I'm saying this as I've had a gutful on the recent Welsh matter - people have different opinions and Wikipedia simply must detail them fairly. Saying Wales cannot be a country did not have weight (and was the work of just two people, one banned), with NI it is different certainly - but people can still have their own opinion. --Matt Lewis (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
There are sources (highly reputable sources) that say many, and similar sources that say often. That's what we have. Find sources that say anything different. Otherwise we have people's own personal view.Wotapalaver (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
A source can say "some", "many", or "often" but I've yet to see one pointing to a definitive survey or opinion poll (apart from a couple of online polls - but seeing as how A Nation Once Again is the most popular song in the UK according to a BBC online poll, I don't think we can put much faith in them :P ). BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there a definitive source saying that "British Isles" is liked by anyone? in the UK? I'm not saying there needs to be, but right now there are sources that say the term is offensive to many and that say it is often offensive. These are from reputable sources. Is there a source that says anything else? Since this has been going on for a while and no such source has been produced it would seem not. Therefore we have reputable sources that say one thing and NO reputable sources that say the opposite. End of story. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a totally different understanding of Wikipedia to you. It would be utterly corrupt if people used the "disprove it" logic on all language like this! I am using your own evidence to disprove the term "many" - funnily enough I don't have any 'pre-made' quotes on the net! You have to acknowledge that the argument is over the qualifying word "many" - you must show good faith about this. If you are saying that editors here are suggesting no criticism of the term exists - this would be foolish as nobody is. We obviously know that at least some like the term, and at least some don't: The difference between "some" and "many" in the encyclopedic context of Wikipedia is enormous! It couldn't be larger. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no references that anyone regards the term as unproblematic, or any references that say there is a problem that is confined to a minority, tiny, vocal or otherwise. I don't even see references to back up the claim that the term is the preferred one in the UK, and there are even a few references that suggest it might not be. I see lots of references saying that the term is problematic/objectionable, etc., to many and often in Ireland, or even just without qualification saying things like "often offensive to Irish sensibilities", which would (potentially unreasonably) suggest that it is offensive to ALL Irish. I see editors mischaracterizing the references, with TharkunColl claiming that they include letters to the newspaper (they don't), and you claiming that the sources are "academic tracts" and untrustworthy. Meantime we have uncontradicted sources of the highest quality saying many and often - which sources you are still resolutely ignoring and/or claiming are dime-a-dozen despite them being from major British and American academic publishers of the highest rank. I'm dying to see how you manage to go through them one-by-one to demonstrate that they should not be given weight. Been waiting a while already. As for corrupting Wikipedia, you are obstructing it with OR, POV, and ignoring verifiability. If you can produce ANY references that suggest that objection to the term is confined to a minority then that would be useful. I'm just following as close to the references as possible and saying "many" and "often", not "all" or "all the time", just "many" and "often". I checked with the Reputable Sources noticeboard and they agreed that such use was supported. One of the editors who works on that board came here and commented too, agreeing that "many" was well supported. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Translation help required

As the article is, as currently written, an Irish-related article then according to the Manual of Style we need Irish versions of all these - can anyone please help in providing them?

The larger islands that constitute the British Isles include:

Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, all these articles (you've listed), should have Irish language counter-parts? GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And Welsh and Scottish Gaelic as well. Or then again, perhaps we should stick to the languages used in those areas. That's why British Isles has all of them, because all those languages are used there. TharkunColl (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
G'Day - Just an Irish version of the name as it appears the "British Isles" falls into the category of an Ireland-related article. I'm shocked we have not spotted this before now. Thark, is there such a thing as a Welsh-specific Manual of Style? If so then I guess if the Welsh editors wish we could include their version as well. You don't happen to know the Irish for the Isle of Wight do you? I'll start with that. Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No but the Latin was Vectis, so perhaps it's quite similar to that (with the various Gaelic language mutations applied). TharkunColl (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
For the purposes of the Manual of Style we need specifically the Modern Irish' version. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we don't. Irish Gaelic is not spoken natively on the Isle of White, therefore we don't need it. Irish Gaelic is spoken natively in the British Isles (albeit by a tiny minority), therefore we do need it. TharkunColl (talk) 08:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry old chap, I beg to differ. The MOS says zilch about an Ireland-related place needing a quota of Irish speakers. Anyway, I'd be rather surprised if there weren't one or two on the IoW. Law of averages and all that, what? Sarah777 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's why I said "natively". By the way, is Europe classed as an Ireland-related place? TharkunColl (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No ref to "natives" in the MoS. See IP suggestion above: I think we need to look at Ireland and the UK as Europe-related places first. Sarah777 (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered the question. Is Europe classed as an Ireland-related place? What's the Irish Gaelic for Gotland, then? Or Lake Geneva? The analogy with British Isles is perfect - namely a geographical region of which Ireland forms part. So either British Isles and Europe are Ireland-related places, or neither are. TharkunColl (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Certainly can't agree with that Thark - too simplistic. Everywhere is a world-related place. No, an area would need to cover 10% or more of the bigger geographical area before whole becomes related to the part. The 10 Downing St Website explains these issues rather succinctly. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Where did you get that 10% figure from? Did you just make it up? TharkunColl (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)So, TharkunColl, are you asking someone for references? Such irony! You have a record of (A) ignoring references produced and (B) not producing any. It doesn't matter what your opinion on this subject is, nor whether you are British or Irish or Russian. You could be Boris Yeltsin, George W Bush, Ian Paisley, or Gerry Adams. What matters is what's in a verifiable source. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No way does Isle of Wight require an Irish Gaelic translation. I don't see that anywhere in WP:MOS so I'm not sure where Sarah777 has got this bizarre idea from. In any case, MOS is a guideline not a policy and if there was such a requirement in it then this is surely a case of ignore all rules. Waggers (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Irish Manual of Style, Waggers. And since BI is deemed an Irish-related article those rules apply. You may wish to ignore them but I won't. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You still haven't said where you got that 10% figure from that you mentioned earlier, which enables you to claim that Europe is not an Ireland-related article. TharkunColl (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The guideline may apply to the British Isles article but it doesn't apply to every constituent part of the British Isles. Waggers (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

European Commission Style Guide

Along the lines of Nuclare's question above, here's an interesting reference. It's interesting too, although potentially anathema to the anti-Europeans among the editors. The European Commission has a style guide. The editions until January 2008 say that writers should write English as it is used in "the British Isles".

For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is that spoken and written in the British Isles.

The April 2008 version says

For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is the standard usage of Britain and Ireland (for the sake of convenience, called ‘British usage’ or ‘British English’ in this Guide).

The term "British Isles", which used to appear in the style guide, is no longer in place. The newer version is available as a downloadable PDF. The older version is still in the google cache if you view it as HTML. Google apparently hasn't bothered to retranslate the document.

Mind you, if you want correct English you'd be better off using "English as it is spoken and written by the Norwegians, Swedes and Dutch". Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the EU obviously regards "British Isles" and "British" as one and the same. Would they - for the sake of convenience - regard Bosnians or Kosovans as "Serbs"; given they all parlez Serbo-Croat? Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
A good example of institutions differentiating between political and geographic use. This has happened slowly over many years: I had a Britain an Ireland road map years ago. So in 2007 the EU used the term "British Isles" in a document and has now changed it? It has nothing to do with wording such as "many Irish find the term objectionable" being OTT. Why can we not have a fair and balanced article documenting all this usage? I object to the fork and the rhetoric not covering the truth: why can't we just do this properly?--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent changes have everything to do with the Irish finding the term offensive. Reality check for Matt et al! Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - can you actually read what I write? --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course I can Matt. Your written English is adequate in grammatical terms. Why do you ask? Sarah777 (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

@Matt Lewis & @Sarah. I don't know why the term is no longer used in the document, just that it is not. However, it is a sample of the term being less used. @ Matt Lewis, the document is not clearly using the term either politically or geographically, although when talking about languages it may be more reliable to assume geographically since the replacement term isn't using political names. "Britain" isn't the nameof a state. Wotapalaver (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When talking about language or culture or ethnic ancestry, a geo-political term like "Britain" or "Great Britain" is fine, especially if the geographic region corresponds to a political region. A geographical term like "British Isles" is not. --Bardcom (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
British Isles is used for this and there is no other term. Irish medievalists don't seem to have any problem using it either ... there is an archipelago and this is its only common name. With all due respect to some of the users above, it is not in general controversial ... it is not even controversial among all Irish people. While I realise it may be an irritating term to many, wikipedia is not here as a platform for change to the English language, and besides there are loads of terms irritating to many (for instance "Old Irish" and "Scots language" irritate Gaelic speakers in Scotland, "Macedonia" irritates Greeks), and I'm sure everyone has a few, but that's just a consequence of living in a diverse world. If nothing else, there are plenty of Scottish people who find being called "British" annoying because the term is effectively interchangable with "English" (as it seems to be in Ireland :P ). The best editors can do is avoid using it if possible, but that can't be taken so far as to obscure meaning. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
'there is an archipelago and this is its only common name'. Quite untrue. 'Britain and Ireland' is a very common name for the geographic area covered by, well, Britain and Ireland. A quick look back on this talk page has several long meticulously-referenced discussions showing this. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And no references. Can you provide a reference for it is not even controversial among all Irish people? Or references for your use of the term irratating? I believe stronger adjectives have been used. --Bardcom (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
References? Is the default position (proved in some other universe) that all Irish find it offensive? Since I have many Irish friends and have lived in Dublin, I know this to be the case. But just search google books for the term and you'll see lots of Irish historians using it. Not so long back from a lecture by Professor Roibeard Ó Maolalaigh, who used the term many times. To the anon, "Britain and Ireland" is not understood widely as a synonym, and it looks to refer to only two of the islands. Man, Islay, Uist-Harris, etc, aren't in Britain or Ireland. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Equally, is the default position that is it not in general controversial? --Bardcom (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As with any term in the English language, yes, the default position is indeed that it is not controversial. In the other direction lies linguistic chaos and total breakdown in communication. TharkunColl (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

But the British Isles used to be just Great Britain, and Ireland, there were just 2 on the list. The rest were just ancillary. Problem is, the BI's means different things to different people, and the article should reflect every aspect of that diverse understanding. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statement? I have never heard it and don't believe it's true. TharkunColl (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The references state that it is offensive/objectionable/etc., to many Irish, or often to Irish, etc. They don't say it's offensive to all Irish, nor that noone in Ireland uses it. As for Islay, Uist, etc., they're in Britain, or certainly in Great Britain. Man is another messier issue. As for other terms, "British Isles and Ireland" is used a lot. "Great Britain and Ireland" is used a lot. "British Isles" is apparently increasingly avoided. It's also sometimes used to mean the UK. You don't have to agree that it should be, just that it is. Maybe not using the term is the height of nuttiness. Maybe. This is an encyclopedia so we shouldn't judge whether what's happening is sensible or not, just that it is. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But they're not in Great Britain .... which is an island. A large proportion of them are further from Britain than Ireland is, and some of them are closer to Ireland than to Britain. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Politically, "Great Britain" describes the combination of England, Scotland, and Wales, and therefore also includes a number of outlying islands such as the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, the Isles of Scilly, the Hebrides, and the island groups of Orkney and Shetland,...<snip>". From WP. (Great) Britain includes the Scottish islands. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
And the Isle of Man? TharkunColl (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
See what I already said. It's another messier issue. I suppose it's either in the British Isles, or the British Isles and Ireland, or British Islands, or it has to "belong" to Britain. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Politically , there is no such thing as Great Britain. We're talking geography anyways ... and Great Britain is just an island. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Concise Oxford English Dictionary. "Great Britain. England, Scotland, Wales". That would mean that Uist, Harris, Shetland, etc are in Great Britain. As for Great Britain politically, it's the part of the UK outside Northern Ireland. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's one shorthand definition, but geographically Great Britain is just an island. Politically, there is no such thing as Great Britain. The highest legal subdivision of the United Kingdom is England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's "one shorthand definition"? It's OED. If there's dispute over the definition..... Wotapalaver (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Wotapalaver, you're not seriously arguing that Great Britain is not the name of the island, are you? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe that I'm saying the OED and political definition of Great Britain includes ALL of England, Scotland and Wales. Shetland, for instance, is in Scotland. The Isle of Wight is in England. The UK consists of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so Great Britain, in the definition of the UK, includes England, Scotland and Wales. It's simple really. The UK is NOT called Great Britain and Northern Ireland and all the other islands around Great Britain that we can't include by name because it would take too long, and Shetland is NOT outside the UK. Since it isn't in Northern Ireland it must be in Great Britain. The term "British Islands" exists to include Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Harris is in Great Britain, unless it's not in the UK, which would be news to me. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, "Great Britain" is sometimes used as a collective term for England, Scotland and Wales; in a geographical and real sense, it is just an island, and is used by extension to refer to England, Scotland and Wales and less commonly England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Google "Britain is an Island" or "Great Britain is an island", and compare with "Great Britain is a group of islands" (1 hit ... this talk page!), and you'll see what English speakers actually say. But to reiterate, Great Britain does not exist politically and, save for one century (an 1/8th of the period Ireland was ruled by the Kingdom of England and its successor states), never has done! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then take it up with OED and the Queen, so that her ministers can change the name of the state. I only report what I find in verifiable sources. As for "Great Britain is a group of islands", if there's only one hit it's because you wrote it, not me. Oops, I guess now there are two hits. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding. Terms have multiple meanings stemming from each other. Who says they don't? And take what up? There's no state called Great Britain, or any political unit or administrative organism. Are you recommending I get a time machine and complain to 18th century London monarchs? Well, I wouldn't do that even if I could as then the term did have a political meaning then. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly why Irish people use the term Britain and Ireland most often. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wotapalaver, you're just making this up. The reason the name British Isles exists in the first place is to avoid such issues and have a clear, unequivocal term. Language abhores a vacuum. This is something that the politically correct brigade simply don't appreciate. TharkunColl (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl, whether or not there's a problem with a replacement term is a separate issue to the term "British Isles" being offensive/objectionable, etc., and that is ALL that is being discussed. The term "nigger" in the USA was unacceptable. Some of the replacements are daft, e.g. "people of colour". It doesn't affect the first term being unacceptable. And I'm not making anything up. Meantime, please provide citation as to why the term exists to avoid these issues, or are you making it up? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have to provide a citation for the bleeding obvious. Why does any word exist in a language? The nigger analogy is flawed I'm afraid, for two main reasons. Firstly, 90% or more of the inhabitants of the BI have no problem with the term. Secondly, the term "nigger" is currently in the process of being "reclaimed". Will the Irish be reclaiming British Isles then? TharkunColl (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If it's "bleeding obvious" it should be very well referenced. Your assertion that "90% of the inhabitants of the BI have no problem" is (again) unsupported by reference. The "nigger analogy" is pretty good. No analogy is ever perfect. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Where do you get this 90% figure from? The republishing of books suggests your figure is very wrong.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The actual difference between the populations of the UK and Southern Ireland is 15 to 1, so 90% was being quite generous I think. Use of the term by the BBC suggests your book publishing factoids are irrelevent. TharkunColl (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It might be, if you had a reference to 100% of the term British Isles in the UK but you don't. As for "factoids", the factoids include modern/recent non-use of the term by Michelin, Reader's Digest, The AA, apparently Collins, etc., i.e. people who make maps. Oh, most of these are UK published too, so 100% becomes not only hard to support, but actually impossible to support. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say 100%, just like you can't say 100% of Southern Irish dislike it. TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I never tried. I doubt that it's true. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict again) Where is this Sourthern Ireland you keep on talking about? Are you refering to counties Cork and Kerry? And what's this about the BBC? You mean the way they also use it to refer to [just British Islands]? The reprinting of loads of English language books is not irrelevant!WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
BBC use it daily on their weather reports. As for Southern Ireland, I am merely using a common English name for the state. TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • RTE never use it daily on their weather reports. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide reference that they use it daily in their weather reports. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, can't be bothered. Have a look at their website archive. Incidentally the link provided above by Wikipeire makes no suggestion that British Isles excludes Southern Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to claim? They don't report on the state called Ireland. It's left blank and they skip it. So by your logic the BBC use the British Isles to just refer to islands that are British! Thank you!Can't be bothered = making it up. The article is about GB and it also calls it the British isles at the end. 2+2=4 TharkunColl.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That is you making an assumption. That article describes weather in the British Isles, gulf stream and all that. There is no reason at all why it should exclude S. Ireland. TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't be bothered equals can't find such a reference. Mind you, here's one of the BBC reporting a UK govt minister talking about "British Isles and Ireland", in the Isle of Man too! [2]. Here's another talking about a canoe trip around the "British Isles and Ireland".[3]. So, can we stick to references or must we educate everyone in the building one-at-a-time? Wotapalaver (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Government ministers do not define language. TharkunColl (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"British Isles and Ireland" would be incomprehensible to English-speakers who didn't know the politics behind it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Why is that exactly? It make perfect sense. Isles that are British and Ireland. Even people in Britland (a common name in Ireland like your S. Ireland in England) would understand it.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It sounds utterly moronic. If you want to sound moronic, please feel free to use it. TharkunColl (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Anyone who can't get the name of a country right is a moron - especially after being corrected on numerous occasions.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Likewise for a geographical region. Touché. TharkunColl (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Government Ministers do not define language. They're just unusually prominent users of language and it's not the only example. The canoeist isn't a govt minister. As for "British Isles and Ireland" being incomprehensible or moronic, one must ask why, or whether there's a reference saying this, or whether we have more "I know best even though my view is completely unsupported by any verifiable source I'll defend it to the death." Basically, if it's really moronic and incomprehensible then one would expect there to be scholars of language saying so. Are there? No? Oh. Besides, one would be in good company. The BBC, British Government Ministers (hmmmm..they can indeed be moronic), the publishers of British Admiralty charts, etc. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As British Isles is a proper noun which includes Ireland, the term is self-contradictory. It's frankly very clumsy English, and if it weren't used on that BBC article it would just be dismissed as that rather than prompting an investigation of what the author meant. It wouldn't make any sense unless one understood that many Irish people objected to "British Isles" including Ireland and that they wished to take Ireland out of it ... hence why politics would need to be known for comprehensibility. The intended meaning might be more transparent if something like "Ireland and British islands" were used, but I'm not sure what that'd mean either.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have read most of this discussion and have yet to see any cources that back up these claims, can you provide them? --neonwhite user page talk 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just for everyone. To clarify what Great Britain is: it says it includes all islands tHAT are part the UK here.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that is a verifiable source. --neonwhite user page talk 01:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. I, for one, have never disputed that the term "British Isles" is very commonly used. I even entered the words "very commonly used" on one edit I made, but was reverted and the word very was removed. This fact is NOT contradictory to the fact that the term is found offensive/objectionable/rejected, etc, by many people - especially in Ireland. This fact is apparently anathema to several editors here, who will not accept what reputable sources tell us. This is Wikipedia. It's not about truth, it's about verifiability. Stop telling me what you think you know. Bring references or be quiet. If the BBC, the UK Hydrographers office and the Lions Club are all using "British Isles and Ireland", then the term apparently isn't so incomprehensible or moronic. Wishing it was won't change anything. Ciao for now. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Silliness is imputing "wish"ful motives on users trying to engage in a constructive discussion. Obviously, in a language with half a billion speakers usage will vary enormously, but on a general encyclopedia obscure usage is not preferable to "general usage", esp. when the former contradicts the latter. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
OED doesn't mention users, constructive discussion or anything like that in its definition of silliness. In any case, the article is still called "British Isles" and there doesn't seem to be much argument that is has been - at least until recently - the most common term. Of course, that may be changing. There are a lot of indications of this. You may decide you personally think that is silly or that you quite like the change. Your view is not relevant, in either direction. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for going off topic; but some of you are indenting your postings to the extreme. It would be easier to select how much to indent you posting & stick with that. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavia

Scandinavia is a name for a cultural and geographic region with a shared (and often bloody) history, and the name is derived from Scania, a historical province of Sweden. So why don't the other Scandinavian countries object to this blatant attempt at Swedish linguistic colonialism? Because they don't want to be the laughing stock of the world, that's why. Perhaps some editors here should take note of this. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You should read the article, it might be an eye-opener for you. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
How embarrassing. That article couldn't be anymore about politics. Embarrassment aside this is clearly trolling by TharkunColl and not discussing improvement of the article. This is not what the article needs.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to say that Wikipeire is a punished sock-creator, a very obvious sock account given his full edit history - and a particularly underhand troll. He/she is forever hiding his tracks through lies, denials, sudden u-turns and new user-page edits designed to throw the reader. There is no way I'm letting-pass him calling anyone else a "troll". My advice to anyone crossing him is to try and ignore him.
Progress won't be made by fighting over issues in here as too many of us are too partisan - the article needs to be laid out in a proper encyclopaedic way - which means no fork, and a Controversy (or suchlike) section that’s puts all the points into context. The issues can then be weighted in a proper encyclopaedic article. Having forks, endless stonewalled debate and occasionally locked articles etc is the perfect situation for some editors.--Matt Lewis (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, despite the politics, and the enmity between those countries, they have no problem with the term Scandinavia. How very different to the present situation as presented by the POV pushers. And how very embarrassing for those POV pushers, given the example of the Scandinavians. TharkunColl (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: 'laughing stock of the world' - what self-centered nonsense! (Typical of the Anglo-centric mindset). 99% of the world don't give a s*it what we call Scandinavia or Great Britain and Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think most sensible people would think it risible that a small group of political POV pushers imagine it's worthwhile to try and change the way people speak. TharkunColl (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The whole point is it has changed! You are just ignoring it. Anyway check out Scandinavia's [talk page]. It's more argumentative than here! Saying that it doesn't have racist stuck up editors trying to insult a whole nation. Your point = muck. Same now with your credibility as an editor.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Buckfast is good stuff, must have a glass. Cheers!! 78.19.222.154 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Who are the racist stuck up editors trying to insult a whole nation here? If you had said racist stuck up editors trying to embarrass a whole nation (their own) I might have agreed with you. TharkunColl (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish ya'll would learn to play nice. PS- and please stop the 'edit warring'. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed - shocked am I. There goes WP:CIVIL out the window! Sarah777 (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Whether or not Scandinavia is controversial depends on whether or not sources say it is. In either case, it has no direct relevance for the British Isles. Wotapalaver (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename Article to Britain and Ireland

This is a totally ridiculous name to have on an article which is supposed to include Ireland. Nobody but a few contrarians and presumably very nationalist British people use this term. A quick look at its history is instructive; from its very first appearance on wikipedia it has been the source of controvery. The first edit in 2001, and the overwhelming majority of objections ever since, have been consumed with objections to the name of this article. The title British Isles is the product of a shotgun wedding, at best, and dates no earlier than 1621 when the British conquest of Ireland was in progress. It might- and that's a big might- have a place as a historical article. It has no place- no place whatsoever- as a description of the position of Ireland in the modern world. It is hard to believe this article is still bearing the current title. As an editor wrote in 2001 the current title discredits the entire wikipedia project. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This suggestion is one of the dumbest I've seen on Wikipedia for a long while (no offence meant). 86.27.162.213 (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> Absolutely none taken. Quite the contrary. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the term "British Isles". Are you saying it doesn't exist? - or shouldn't exist? Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - not a manifesto! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> I'm saying that like Nigger, "British Isles" does exist, and like Nigger it reflects an old power dynamic. I'm also saying that "Britain and Ireland" also commonly exists and, like African-American, it should be the modern name of this article, with "British isles" confined to a historical article on a prejudice just as Nigger is. Because saying Ireland is in an entity called the "British Isles" is so very pre-modern. I trust that is clear. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion actually. The existence or otherwise of "The British Isles" is of no interest to me. The claim that Ireland is a British Isle is both untrue and offensive. Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
And Wikipdedia as an encyclopedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Matt, it's a manifesto, of that there's no doubt. 86.27.162.213 (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> And "British Isles" is simply another coincidence of history. As with, well, everything else in Britain's relationship with Ireland since 1603, there is no manifesto there, at all. Once again the nice British colonialists just, well, stumbled into all these colonies and gave them names which had no purpose. Sheer coincidence. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact is, the term (at least) was used in the history of Great Britain and Ireland; therefore the name of this article 'remains' British Isles. PS- We've had these 'page movement' request before & all were turned down. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>> "Was" yes, like thousands upon thousands of other names in world history. Those names are not used to describe places and people today when they are deemed to be offensive. They are historical articles. They are not articles claiming to represent current peoples or areas in 2008. If that were the case, please go over and delete the "neologism" African-American and replace it with Nigger as its modern name. This "British Isles" article should be confined to a discussion of a historical prejudice/claim. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

When the truth is at stake, like freedom, earlier failure is just another reason to try again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Freedom to censor an encyclopaedia? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
RE the PS above on other mergers being "turned down": this merely demonstrates that the dispute page is closely guarded imo. I expect we have all the usual objectors grouped now - lets see some new blood. An WP:AfD can be a possible route to merging too: a (theoretically) impartial decision is at the end of it, and it can attract new eyes. I believe it is both recommended practice and best for the subject to merge a fork like this one into the principal article.--Matt Lewis (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the whole article go to Arb? 78.19.13.108 (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What aspect should be arbitrated? Silas Stoat (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
People, believe me. You may remove BI from Wikipedia articles or move BI around. But, this article's name shall remain (for historical reasons). For example: If Northern Ireland were to 'someday' leave the rest of the UK & join the RoI? we'd still have an article called Northern Ireland (albiet with 'past tense' content). GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
86.42.124.125, firstly please read the header at the top of this page - you'll see that this thread is out of place here as we have a separate page for discussing the name of the article. Secondly, your assertion that the term "British Isles" is only used by a small minority of people with extreme political views is simply not true; if you're going to push that point you certainly need to back up your claim with some reliable sources. Finally, a note to Matt Lewis - this article is not about the term "British Isles"; this article is about the British Isles. Waggers (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrong Waggers. Matt is certainly correct on one thing: the article is about the "British Isles". Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It's both. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair point about me using "term" Waggers - but you know where it leads when you start talking in the definitive: reams of more 'mini-debate'! I actually compromise and revise my language quite often here, believe it or not. I just want to see one single fair article called "British Isles"! There is no reason this article can't cover "British Isles" as a term that is disliked - I just object to it having a fork article too, and all this exaggerated language everywhere. Any "dissent" movement is a Wikipedia creation as far as I can see! The dearth of strong examples and the widespread media/academic use of the word prove this. We must tone-down and do it properly: heavy exaggerated language helps no one. We must detail the dissent in context - and not with the use of the word "many" wikilinking to a fork that was a week or so ago hugely biased and inaccurate! I edited out lots of exaggeration - but why the hell should editors have to monitor both articles? We only need one article on this.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose silly idea. The term "British Isles" should always have an article. For a long time, at least a couple of hundred years and maybe in the future, it was/is the most common name for the group of islands; it appeared in the name of thousands of books, was used millions of times. Even if, in a few years or decades, the article ultimately contains a few lines like "The British Isles was the name previously given to the island group consisting of........", there should still be an article with this title. Since the definition of the group is largely political (the inclusion of the Channel Islands makes it so) it would probably get a treatment more like nigger, kike, jap, etc., where an article remains containing an exlanation of what the term used to mean, than terms like Bombay where a simple redirect is used. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

>>>Support Nothing at all silly about it. If you are looking for African-American you don't find it under 'Nigger'. You do find 'Nigger' as an article dedicated to a study of a common past prejudice. Such a historical article is, as I said, fine. However, this article is claiming to be a modern name for Great Britain and Ireland. It is not. Like 'Nigger' the term 'British Isles' is representative of a historical power dynamic. It has no place as the modern name for "this archipelago". That is my point. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While in terms of archaic offensiveness "British Isles" is more akin to "nigger" than "Bombay" I think for now a redirect to " Great Britain and Ireland" is more appropriate. When the term becomes totally redundant in both polite circles and the mainstream media we can resurrect it as per "nigger". Sarah777 (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean like "nigger" about which there is a decent article, not a redirect to a more politically correct term. It really doesn't matter how offensive any demographic finds a term, if there is something to write about it based on reliable sources, then it can have its own article. Rockpocket 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Sarah? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Rock; Nigger is a pejorative term originally used to refer to dark skinned people - yes an article on the "British Isles" akin to that would be fine. So long as it was an article about the "term"; not the subject of the pejorative term. Matt? Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
See Rock, the situation we currently have (analogically) is that we can't create an article about these islands without calling it "Nigger"; a situation imposed on us by anti-fork British nationalists (or the white Southern racists of our analogy). Sarah777 (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The sources available determine what the article is about, and that is a discussion I'm sure everyone would be willing to have. However, that is a very differant argument than proposing it be redirected because it is considered pejorative by some. If we can all agree that there should be an article, then we can move on and concern ourselves what it should be about. Rockpocket 00:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There shouldn't be an article on the area covered by the term "British Isles" as there are not enough distinctive geographical similarities and consequently all that is left is a political interpretation. Nevertheless, if there is going to be an article on this archipelago, it should not be under the name "British Isles". "British Isles" should be a historical article; Britain and Ireland a modern one. After all, when the English conquered Scotland they didn't rename the entire place Greater England. No, they sought Scottish co-operation/cannonfodder and renamed the extended English state "Great Britain" to make the Scottish feel a bit better. No such wisdom today; this name and this article is about forcing a term from British nationalist history upon Ireland and the Irish. Nothing more, and nothing less. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, if there is going to be an article on this archipelago, it should not be under the name "British Isles". WP:COMMONNAME disagrees. Waggers (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm indifferent as to whether there should be an article about the "British Isles" but I've no big problem with an article about Great Britain and Ireland and the adjacent islands; which is what the current article is. The inclusion of the Channel Islands in the article called "British Isles" proves, if there was ever any doubt, that "British Isles" is a political, not geographical, term. Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, going back to the risible "rationale" for claiming that BI is a geographical term and yet includes the Channel Isles ("established usage") I will start an article on Great Britain and Ireland, a purely geographical entity that excludes the Channel Islands. This article will refer to a clearly defined geographical area. May I assume that I will be supported in this by all the editors involved in this discussion? Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I expect it would probably end up being merged with this one since I'm not sure there is much more to say that isn't already here. Rockpocket 01:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not just a geographical term. The fact that the islands, including the Channel Islands, have a shared history, culture and language also plays a part. TharkunColl (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Undoubtedly the term has political conotations and origins too. It was coined politically (see the references in the article), it is perceived as political (see the references in the naming dispute page). Ultimately if it didn't have political conotations then there would be no need for people to keep trying to insist it was a purely geographic term, which it isn't. Mind you, this "shared history, culture and language" is a bit of an isolationist dream. Everywhere in Europe has "shared history, culture and language" to a pretty large extent. The shared history is a bit more shared between Britain and Ireland than between - say - Britain and The Netherlands, but not a whole lot. The language is only shared since the latter part of the 19th century and the shared cultural aspects include, ehm, the common features of Northern European culture, i.e. beer, football, TV. The idea that Britain and Ireland share something that none of these Johnny foreigners have is - in my experience - an attempt to deny the UK's position in European shared history, culture and language. The language sharing used to only ever exist for an elite, first in Latin, then probably French, now in American. Wotapalaver (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It was coined by the Ancient Greeks (see references in the article). The nations of the British Isles share far more linguistically and culturally than they do with Continental Europe. I don't know any English person, for example, who would regard the Irish as foreigners. There are many millions of Irish people and their descendants in England (quite possibly more than in Ireland), but never, ever have the tabloid press ever so much as raised an eyebrow at this - unlike their relentless and vociferous campaigns against the influx of people from outside the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
But above you told us it was a "purely geographic" term. So, which is it? Nuclare (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)@TharkunColl. No, "the British Isles" was coined when the Ancient Greeks were long dead. As for the English/British "shared culture" regarding the Irish, your opinion must reflect a very recent change in the UK, which is historically quite seriously anti-Irish, or you are simply (again) bringing your incorrect opinion in place of easily verifiable fact. Think about the approach of magazines like Punch in the 19th century, almost any comedian in the 20th, the UK police and justice system approach to the Irish in the 20th century. This approach was not so distinctly different to the approach of the English/British to other "enemies" at other times. The Punch cartoons of the Irish during the 19th century, as beasts and monsters, were representative of the Victorian view of the Irish as hardly better than apes. This is well documented. The view of the Germans at the same time was that of a kind of spiritual brother of the Englishman, at least until WW1 later intervened. Is that "shared culture" between Britain and Ireland. Did the Irish also view themselves as beasts and monsters? Pretty fundamental really. How about anti-Irish racism in England in the '50's, '60s, '70s and '80s (No blacks, no dogs, no Irish). It was typical of any other racism but hardly indicative of "shared culture". Germans trying to get jobs or flats in London at the same time did not suffer similar problems. Can you have a shared culture if one party to the shared culture regards the other part as sub-human? The police and justice approach at various times, particularly the '70s and '80s, was not untypical of a frequent police approach to any "undesirables", and this view was also not uncommon in daily life (ever heard a Paul Brady song called "Nothing but a bunch of murderers"?). As for the tabloid press, how about the Daily Mail being accused of "incitement to hatred against Irish people" in 1997, as well as other anti-Irish views [4], including saying "As soon as you arrive in Ireland you leave the modern world" in 1998 and being successfully sued for it? The Sun has also engaged in anti-Irishness at various times. Is that "shared culture"? How about anti-Irish humour in Britain? Is that "shared culture"? And before you start, it's well documented that anti-Irish humour was distinctly different to Scots or Welsh jokes. From my own personal experience, I was at a serious industry Xmas Dinner (black-tie event, several hundred pounds for dinner) in a hotel on Hyde Park in the mid-1990s with people from several countries, including one Irish guy I depended on almost entirely to get my job done. The main speaker spent about 5 minutes making nasty anti-Irish jokes. It was awful. How about comments in an NHS publication? "Although not as overt as in the past, anti-Irish racism still persists in the form of "Irish jokes" and stereotypes around alcoholism. This impacts at individual level, making people angry, uncomfortable, rejected and even feeling inferior. A lack of understanding of Irish culture on the part of healthcare practitioners, can affect diagnosis, treatment and recovery from mental illness." This illustrates that they don't believe in a shared culture. One of the references on the references page says that the islands have developed very different intellectual cultures. A 1995 publication (MacMillan) on Irish women in Britain opens by saying "The Irish are largely invisible as an ethnic group in Britain but continue to be racialized as inferior and alien Others". Just because you don't know any English people who would regard Irish people as "foreigners" doesn't mean your view is correct. It may be innocently ignorant, but it doesn't seem to be correct. As for "vociferous howls" about other immigrants, the Poles were briefly worried about but it was hardly relentless and they certainly never suffered "No Blacks, no dogs, no Poles". Wotapalaver (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Your mention of the alcoholic stereotype is interesting, because that exists on the other side of the world as well. The Simpsons (Kent Brockman) - "Drunkenness, violence, and the mindless destruction of property: is this what we think of, when we think of the Irish?" Family Guy, when the lead chacter goes to find his biological father in Ireland, every single "joke" concerns the Irish and booze. It's not just a British invention, so one starts to wonder where it actually comes from. Speaking personally, if I were to use such a stereotype as part of a joke, I would be doing so indulgently, rather than with malice. Because, despite what some people may think, I actually like the Irish. It is perfectly natural - perhaps even a British characteristic - to poke fun at things that we like. Just possibly, this has been misunderstood by those on the receiving end. TharkunColl (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The idea of the well-intentioned racist is a little difficult to sustain. "Well chaps, in my view they're all drunken animals and I wouldn't have one in my house. Better lock them all up really, bloody terrorists the lot of them. Now, let's talk about how much culture we share with them, eh? Jolly good, what!" Right. TharkunColl, you may actually like the Irish. Unfortunately you may be a minority. The idea of shared culture between two peoples when one has a history of characterizing the other as sub-human, drunken oafs, dangerous murderers, etc,. and knows little if anything about the other culture is just a bit of a stretch. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I fear you have a serious misunderstanding of the English, if you think we all (or even most of us) hate the Irish and/or think they're subhuman. Indeed, your stereotype of us as racist bigots would be serious grounds for taking offense, if we lacked the sort of national self confidence that allows us to revel in such insults. TharkunColl (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no serious misunderstanding of the English and I never made any stereotype. I pointed at external verifiable facts. Like them or don't like them. They're not my idea and they're not insults so stop making ad hominem digressions. The anti-Irish racism of Victorian England is beyond doubt. The racism in the 1950's, etc., has been discussed in The Telegraph, which is hardly likely to misunderstand or insult the English and is similarly undeniable. The MacMillan publication is a MacMillan publication. The NHS is the NHS. Another site that talks about anti-Irish racism in Britain (mostly England) is IIRC related to the UK National Archive and covers immigrant experience in general. These are hardly anti-English organizations and it took 5 minutes to find them. However, the question still remains. If this is the historic context, when exactly did the two countries get so much shared culture? I'm sure there has been a lot of successful assimilation of Irish in Britain, but assimilation is not the same as saying that the two source cultures are the same. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a quote from Britannica [5] will illustrate that I am not misunderstanding or insulting the English. Here's a sample..."The English had had a long history of separating themselves from others and treating foreigners, such as the Irish, as alien “others.” By the 17th century, their policies and practices in Ireland had led to an image of the Irish as “savages” who were incapable of being civilized. Proposals to conquer the Irish, take over their lands, and use the native peoples as forced labour failed largely because of Irish resistance. It was then that many Englishmen turned to the idea of colonizing the New World. Their attitudes toward the Irish set precedents for how they were to treat the New World Indians and, later, Africans." Now, this covers the period up to some time around the 17th or 18th centuries. 19th Century is well described above. 20th century we have "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish", the MacMillan ref describing how the Irish were treated as alien Others, and probably a long list of anti-Irish rants in the British press, but hey - there's a unique shared culture across the British Isles. Oh yeah. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
People had lots of weird prejudices in the past. Historically, the level of anti-Irish feeling in England and (esp) North America is exaggerated (there is a recent article debunking these myths somewhere), though of course it existed (as it existed for all non-English people). Much of it derives from the Irish themselves, the Anglo-Irish who cultivated anti-Gaelic prejudices and communicated them elsewhere. Prolly about 90% of current anti-Irish feeling on the other island can be found at Rangers games, the bulk of whose supporters are themselves Irish or of Irish origin and who by accent and culture are far more like the Irish than the English or even other Scots. In all honesty, the people in the British Isles who suffer most from prejudices and cultural hostility of the English are the Welsh (incidentally the most linguistically distinct part of the islands), about whom some of the most obscene things are still acceptable to say in English culture. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Irish support Celtic, not rangers! Rangers are generally anti-Irish, I lived in Scotland for 2 years. I remember it well. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you ever noticed how many Red Hand flags are visible among Rangers fans? Many of them are indeed shamefully anti-Irish, but it is Irish anti-Irishness of the Ulster kind, that aspect of Rangers deriving from immigrants from Ulster. Its origins can be found in the community feuds of Ulster, and indeed, a large proportion of Rangers' most hardcore support come over from Ulster every two weeks. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ironic that the red hand of ulster is strongly rooted to Irish Gaelic culture, isn't it?WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • (unindent), The "red hand" flag is cultural appropriation, it can be argued. I think those Ranger fans are British, through and through, certainly wouldn't consider themselves Irish, and some of the biggest defenders of the British Isles, in my experience anyway. Scotland should reject the British Isles too, because "British = English" in peoples perceptions. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Could you guys please remember that this page is for discussing improvements to the British Isles article? There are places on the net where you can discuss the broader issues, but this isn't one of them. Thanks. --John (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

John. There is a fairly frequently repeated assumption here, and this feeds into the article, that the islands have some sort of unique shared culture. It's important to explore this to identify why people think this, what counter points exits, etc. If there is little or no shared culture, then this can impact the content/approach of the article. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
They speak English, and language is the main carrier of culture. What else? Do you want a simple list? How about pubs then? TharkunColl (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ireland (outside Dublin) mostly speaks English only since the latter part of the 19th Century. The Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes, etc., almost all speak English since the latter part of the 20th Century. Meetings in large Belgian companies are fairly often held in English because the Walloons don't speak Dutch and the Flemish don't speak French, but they all speak English. As for pubs, Belgium, Holland, Germany, etc., have pubs too. It's hardly a unique shared culture between Britain and Ireland. Some of the references I mentioned above contradict that idea, although there are certainly many shared elements of culture, much as there are across Europe. Recent Polish immigrants in the UK fitted right in, demonstrating a very similar culture. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You mean Franco-German? 78.19.222.154 (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No, English. Not sure what Franco-German is but if you mean the various Germanic languages descended from Frankish (such as Dutch) then no, English is quite separate and mutually unintelligible. TharkunColl (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is actually really simple. The BI comprise two main islands, of 60,587,300 and 6,090,000 population respectively. It is fair and reasonable that all points of view be represented here, but WP:UNDUE constrains us to represent minority views proportionately. Even if the term is hated by every single Irish person (RoI and NI), that would still be less than 10% of the people living in this archipelago. Our coverage should reflect that. --John (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A graph of the populations of Ireland and Europe indexed against 1750 showing the disastrous consequence of the 1845—49 famine.
Population shouldn't come into it. If it weren't for Britain and their government, the Irish Famine/genocide (whatever you want to call it) wouldn't have happened and who knows what the respective populations would have been. The fact is theis is two seperate groups.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 13:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if population does come into it, which is doubtful and which would require proof that everyone in Britain DOES use the term, it would still not be undue weight to cover the problems with the term. On my talk page, where he was accusing me of incivility, John compared the view that the term is offensive/objectionable to the view that the Earth is flat, which is such a wildly out-of-whack analogy that it's breathtaking. see [6] for John's approach. Wotapalaver (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This suggestion by User:John is absurd. First, by his "majority" logic everyone else in the EU can decide what to call the British. For that matter, arbitrarily decide to throw Iraq in with the United States and the native Iraqis all of a sudden become a minority with no claim over their own society. As I said, absurd. Second, there is no evidence at all (as another user just pointed out) that "British Isles" is anything like a majority term over in Britain. User:John's equation of the British population with such a prejudiced term betrays a belief in some ideological conformity to the myths of British nationalism. Such ideological conformity might comfort him, but where is his evidence for equating both? I have yet to hear the BBC, ITV or SKY use the term "British Isles", something which indicates that the term "British Isles" is, ironically for him, actually a minority term in Britain. In the meantime please don't equate the population of Britain with such a prejudiced and anti-Irish term. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest you watch the BBC weather reports each day. TharkunColl (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, watch the BBC weather on a quotidian basis. I, too, have yet to hear the BBC use the term "British Isles" in their weather forecasts. Have you any evidence for this? [I see below that you have failed to produce it] 194.125.86.251 (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Two Articles

Hmmm, I like Sarah's idea. Make this article historical & create a new article called Great Britain and Ireland. As long as it doesn't break OR, I would find it acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also approve of this.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 15:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would also approve. 86.42.124.125 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I would not approve. Such an article title ignores all the other islands in the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree with the concept of the idea though? There are many potential names which can be sorted out at a later date.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 15:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
No. It is not Wikipedia's job to try and influence language for political reasons. TharkunColl (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, very good idea. Nobody disputes that the British Isles was a historical British term. It is, however, Wikipedia's job to reflect language use and language change. There is abundant evidence from reputable English language sources that the term "British Isles" has been, and is being, replaced across the anglophone world. Wikipedia should keep with that. 194.125.86.251 (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then don't say its the title you disagree with! I'm pretty sure editors here are trying to reflect on language use not influence it!WikipÉIRE\(caint) 16:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is a cyclical one. The most common name for the entity Sarah's talking about (the one which excludes the Channel Islands) is still the "British Isles", therefore such an article should be called "British Isles" according to WP:COMMONNAME. But when we look at what the available reliable sources say about the British Isles, we see that some (but not all) of them include the Channel Islands as part of their definition. So if you want to obey WP:COMMONNAME and include all the relevant information from reliable sources, you end up with the status quo. If you really want to pursue Sarah's idea and obey the naming conventions, you'd actually end up using some form of disambiguation - the two articles might be called "British Isles (including Channel Islands)" and "British Isles (excluding Channel Islands)". I can't see how that would add any more value to the encylopaedia than having a sentence saying that some sources include the Channel Islands while others don't. We already have that sentence in the article. Waggers (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

John Dee

Why do the political POV pushers keep reverting my John Dee edits? The sources do not support the statements that had hitherto been in the article. Perhaps they hoped that no one would ever notice. TharkunColl (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tharkum, leave at talk for a couple of days at least, no need for edit-warring! 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just requested 'page protection', fellas. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we get rid of those lies about John Dee first, please? TharkunColl (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not up to me. You can bring such concerns to an Administrator, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's funny how these articles always tend to get locked on the most tendentious versions. A small, vocal and politicised minority can always get their way on Wikipedia through sheer persistence. Those of us who value truth are fighting a reargard action it seems. TharkunColl (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's funny how the same small vocal group managed to get their way with the British, Irish and US governments, the EU, UN and every dictionary and road map published since the turn of the century!WikipÉIRE\(caint) 00:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No Thark, you are edit-warring, it's you who want to make change without discussion, please hold and refs will be examined in due course. 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Trust me Tharky, my page protection requestes aren't calculated. I'm not the Darth Sedious/Palpatine of these Troubles related articles (I just dislike edit warring). GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not an edit-war, it's just a skirmish! ;) 78.19.222.154 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you do relize that you both can go to the protection page & protest my request (afterall, I'm not demanding protection). GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this article. The IP is a banned editor who is agitating, those with accounts can continue to edit at will. Rockpocket 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of FACT for a minute. TharkunColl is deleting text from the article on the basis that is says things about John Dee that don't appear in the reference. WRONG. Possibly a conscious lie and deliberate vandalism. 15 seconds in the reference finds the text, which says "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism...". So TharkunColl, references state pretty much EXACTLY what you were deleting and exactly what your edit summary said did not exist. [7]. Why is this not VANDALISM? Wotapalaver (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't mention the British Isles. Why's all that stuff about the British Empire even remotely relevant? Did the writer wish his readers to subconsciously conflate the two concepts? TharkunColl (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The text you deleted represented the source very accurately. You said "(PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT)". The source completely supports the text that was there and is from the Canadian Journal of History. It was in context, in sequence and didn't misrepresent anything and you deleted it using a totally misleading edit summery. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The entire tone of that section seeks to conflate the terms British Empire with British Isles. There's even a map of the British Empire. Why is this? TharkunColl (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
You beg to differ. You're deleting references you don't like again. That's what you're doing. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking to me? I have no idea whether TharkunColl's edits are good or not. I reverted the edits of a banned contributor as per policy, irrespective of the merit of the edit. If you think the IP's edit was a good one than reinstate it under your own name. Problem solved. Apologies. I am getting confused between this article and the other one! Let me try again. No, I didn't check the merits of the IP's argument. He is banned, so he is not permitted to edit not matter how good his arguments are. If you think his points are valid, feel free to replace his edits under your own name. Rockpocket 08:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough if the other editor is banned. Perhaps TharkunColl should be banned too, or at least blocked for a while. Multiple RR on a page where we still have a pending 3RR decision, and worse, the reverts are deleting supported and correctly referenced text. Naughty!! Wotapalaver (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments above. The quotes about Dee were referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
And the text clearly said so in a short section about John Dee (who - reading the archives - YOU brought into the article) and you deleted just the section of the text you didn't like, which text was a near-verbatim quote from the Canadian Journal of history. Vandalism. In any case, since the British Empire included everything west to the center of the Pacific Ocean and north of 45 degrees north that were either already discovered by British subjects or remained terra incognita and were outside of the territory granted by the papal donation to the Spanish and Portugese, it included both Ireland and Britain. The Roman Empire included Rome. The Japanese Empire included Japan. The British Empire included Britain and Ireland and the other islands. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did indeed discover Dee's mention of the British Isles, beating the OED by half a century. Dee, incidentally, also believed he was in contact with angels through having his colleague stare into a crystal ball. Should we mention this, as well? TharkunColl (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. What I do know is that you are a serial deleter of references to reputable sources and that you actively misrepresented this latest deletion. That's vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Reputable sources that do not refer to the subject matter of the article. TharkunColl (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reduce) Your wriggling and excuses don't wash. The text was relevant to the section of the article it was in, was properly referenced, and you only deleted a little piece of it that you didn't like and you said that it was because it wasn't supported by reference, when it was. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain why having a whole section on the British Empire, including a map, is the slightest bit relevant to an article on the British Isles? TharkunColl (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Can you explain why you are deleting perfectly referenced text while your misleading edit summaries claim the text isn't supported by reference? Vandalism. As for it being "a whole section" on the British Empire, disingenuous descriptions and sophistry can't create excuses when there is none. Vandalism. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Then please do so. TharkunColl (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

GUYS PLEASE, this is filling up my watchlist, whatever the rights and wrongs it is now mutually abusive. I think it is clear that there is going to be a section of the British Empire here otherwise the history is incomplete. The origins of the term are also of importance and need to be there. However its not clear to me from the above what the real issue is. Is it possible, for the sake of other editors for each of you to state (without any commentary on the other) what you think should be included or deleted and why so that the rest of us can engage and resolve this? --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, there´s a right and a wrong all right. Look at this diff [8], which removed text reading "Current scholarly opinion is generally that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism", the edit summary "Removed something that was not in the reference", and the text from the reference "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism,". TharkunColl then repeatedly deleted the same text although it was reinserted by at least two other editors. We have two real problems. I can solve one by reinserting the text. The other can only be solved by an admin giving TharkunColl a good talking-to, both for vandalism and for multiple (invalid) reverts on a page where there is still a 3RR decision pending. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this. To help me would you say on which of the 22 pages in the authority the statement is made? Its late at night, I have an early flight and you can probably go there straight away. That should be easy to check and then we can look to TharkunColl's response. --Snowded (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Page 2 of the reference, which is where the text of the article really starts. It's gotta be in the first paragraph of the main text. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Snowded, stop the grudge match. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Grudge match? Vandalism deserves strong opposition, or don't you think so? Anyway, Wikipeire already fixed problem number one. Now, where's an admin when you need one. There were several here earlier. Wotapalaver (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting notion of "fixing", kind of a Godfather flavour to it. Couldn't be less appealing. You've been in touch with at least one admin complaining to the ref - must they come directly to you now? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what I fixed but anyway, I agree that the issues of the article need to be clarified.WikipÉIRE\(caint) 22:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Enough. First of all, please read WP:VANDAL, Wotapalaver. Is will become clear, "vandalism" does not accurate describe TharkunColl's edits. Calling anyone with more than a few good edits to their name a "vandal" is generally a bad idea, repeating it incessantly and provocatively becomes name-calling. So stop it now, please. That done, I would strongly suggest you both state your case at why the content you wish to see added/removed should be and what exactly you wish to add or remove. Do so without reference to the other. We can then review the dispute in terms of the content, not the personality or motivation of the people. Thank you. Rockpocket 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I did read the policy. It looks like a mix of blanking and sneaky vandalism to me, especially given the edit summaries, which had accusations of POV and then repeated loud capitals stating the text wasn't supported by reference, which it was. I call it as I see it, and I haven't seen TharkunColl making good edits, sorry if I'm a bit too direct. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
For further reference: vandals don't usually remove a reference and discuss it in the talk page. They tend to be friends of gays or men with big penises. I wouldn't like to comment on whether TharkunColl fits either of these, but his editing certainly does not indicate it. Therefore unless someone is boasting about their mammoth appendage, or giving a shout out to a homosexual buddy, my advice to you is to not call them a "vandal". Doing so tend to escalate, rather then diffuse tension. Rockpocket 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
You are supposed to asume good faith. You know, on these pages the English have been accused of genocide, racism, bigotry, and all sorts of terrible things. What do you think might happen if I, right now, started slagging off the Irish? TharkunColl (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Thark, that isn't "slagging" - that is merely stating recorded fact. (Though I prefer to use the term "British" rather than "English" - on the whole more accurate). And Rock, non-vandals would discuss on the talkpage first and then remove the references if there is consensus. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
And you haven't edit warred without discussion first, Sarah. Does that make you a "vandal" too? Come on now. Everyone: just lay off the rhetoric and name calling get back to the content. Rockpocket 01:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)This wasn't "editing", it was repeated deletion of supported text with totally misleading edit summaries. That meets the definition of vandalism "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles." The fact that what TharkunColl did more closely meets the definition of sneaky vandalism rather than that of the most common types of vandalism doesn't stop it being vandalism. Sneaky vandalism is "Vandalism that is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g. minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages. Some vandals even use edit summaries such as "rv vandalism" to mask their changes." Seems good to me. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine. We have established what you think, despite the fact that two admins (and one other editor) have independently informed you that they disagree with you. But you know best, I guess. Irrespective, what is entirely clear that continuing to argue the point is entirely without a constructive purpose. And consequently continuing use of the term will likely be considered purposely tendentious and disruptive. You have been warned. Now please focus on the content, not the contributor, before you find yourself unable to. Rockpocket 07:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My position is very simple. There is no need whatsoever to mention the British Empire (still less have map of it) in an article on the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Where not the so-called "Brutish Isles" the heart of the Evil Empire? Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a separate debate and I suggest you open a new section to discuss it (with more of an argument than the above assertion). The immediate issue is the reversal of the reference - did you check it before reversing? --Snowded (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I didn't plough all through the pages. My point, as I said, was simple - why have any reference to the British Empire at all? TharkunColl (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
WOW. TharkunColl didn't "plough through all the pages" but he felt competent to three times delete the text, each time stating that the text wasn't in the reference. Also, he didn't actually bother to mention that he hadn't read the reference until offered it as an excuse - he just deleted the text three times with grotesquely misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, nor have I - who is John Dee? What is this row about? I merely came here to counter your defence of the Imperial Entity. Sarah777 (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Which of course you might think I shouldn't; as it isn't helping to improve the article to the casual observer. But i ask you to suspend your disbelief on this one. Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
John Dee is - according to the references in the article - the person who first used the terms "British Empire", "British Ocean" and "British Isles". There were approx six lines of text about this and about him. Wotapalaver (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It was the Ancient Greeks who first used the term British Isles. Dee was a scholar and antiquarian, and it is no accident that he used a Classical term such as this in his writings (indeed, knowing Dee's interests allowed me to act on a hunch when I found his reference, predating the OED's by half a century). The point is though that he did not coin the term. As for the term British Empire, he may well have coined that, but even here we need to tread carefully, or we might lose its significance. In other words, why didn't he call it the English Empire? The answer is because he was a Welshman, i.e. he was British. To English ears in the 16th century "British" meant Welsh. Dee sought to bolster the ancient traditions of his own people, which is why he also wrote quite a lot about King Arthur and his supposed conquests in the northern seas. TharkunColl (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Greeks called them the Pretanic Isles. Note it doesn't say British but Pretanic. Very different. The British Isles was invented from what I can see by John Dee. The Greek term isn't offensive to the Irish people but John Dee's term is.WikipÉire ♣ 08:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Greeks called them αι Πρετανικαι νησοι (ai Pretanikoi nesoi, literally "the British isles"). "British" is the exact English translation of the Greek Pretanikoi. If "Pretanic Islands" isn't offensive to the Irish, but "British Isles" is, how about the intermediate Latin form, Britanniae? Is that offensive? TharkunColl (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It actually translates as Brittanic Isles not literally British Isles. You just made that up. Or rather John Dee did. Britanniae isn't offensive to me but I can't speak for the rest of Ireland like I can for the term British Isles.WikipÉire ♣ 09:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"British" and "Britannic" mean essentially the same thing, except that "British" is the natural way of forming the adjective in English, rather than using an artificial Latinate form (and was even more natural in Dee's day). Also, please explain how you can speak for the whole of Ireland with regard to the term British Isles. But I suppose at least we're getting somewhere. If you don't think it offensive for Ireland to be classed as part of Britanniae, then perhaps there are grounds for optimism. TharkunColl (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
They don't mean the same thing. British means the UK/Britain, Britannic means Ireland, Britain, Iceland/Faroe islands etc. Very different meaning. Its a widely accepted fact that the term British applied to Irish people is offensive. Everyone has cited dozens of sources above showing this so don't start that again. If you called an Irish person British 99.9% of the time you'd get a punch. Similary they find the term British Isles applied to the island offensive too. How are you not getting this? This has been explained in huge detail before.
You are disgracefully putting words in my mouth. Where did I say I don't think its offensive for Irish people for Ireland to be classed as part of Britanniae. I said I don't find the exact word or noun offensive. Thats it. You are trying to wind me up now. You are not contributing to the improving of the article anymore.WikipÉire ♣ 09:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"99.9% of the time you'd get a punch". You're not trying to imply that the Irish are violent, are you? Anyway, you're wrong. Quite a lot of Irish, especually in Ulster, are very proud indeed to be called British. TharkunColl (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually agree with Tharkun (particularly when he says things that blatantly contradict each other, as he did up the board, and the silly Scandanavia wind-up), but I do agree with Tharkun here. 99.9% finding the term offensive is blatant exaggeration, 'getting a punch' is even more exaggerated. Both even if we are talking only about non-Unionists. I assume you weren't being literal, but still. I'd personally be careful with the term "offensive" altogher in this discussion. Nuclare (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
None of this is relevant to the fact that TharkunColl was repeatedly deleting text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
TharkunColl is also clearly trying to wind up all the Irish editors too.WikipÉire ♣ 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not "trying to wind up all the Irish editors", unless you think that pointing out a few facts constitutes such. But then, when have facts ever got in the way of a good political POV? And why is it okay to impute such base motives to me? Isn't there something about assuming good faith? Because I assure you all I'm interested in is the truth. TharkunColl (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
If we should assume good faith then explain why you deleted text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries? Because you did exactly that. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you've quite got the hang of it, have you? Assuming good faith does not mean banging on and on about the same thing for days on end. TharkunColl (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I've got the hang of it all right. I assume good faith until I see evidence that good faith should NOT be assumed. You deleted text that is 100% supported by reference, while simultaneously saying "Why do the political POV pushers keep reverting my John Dee edits? The sources do not support the statements that had hitherto been in the article. Perhaps they hoped that no one would ever notice." and then following up with "It's funny how these articles always tend to get locked on the most tendentious versions. A small, vocal and politicised minority can always get their way on Wikipedia through sheer persistence. Those of us who value truth are fighting a reargard action it seems." and with edit summaries like "Removed something that was not in the reference" and "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT".
You were deleting supported, referenced text while claiming, in edit summary and in talk, to be removing unsupported text that was put there by "POV pushers". So, I see iron-clad evidence that good faith should NOT be assumed on your edits and that you will deliberately mislead other editors. Unless of course you can explain why you deleted text with grotesquely and deliberately misleading edit summaries. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This will be the last time I answer the same question that you've asked over and over again ad nauseam, and which I've already answered many times. The quotations referred to the British Empire, not the British Isles. Now please stop trolling. TharkunColl (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
This was another time you refused to answer the question and tried to divert attention through misdirection. At least you finally admit the quotations existed in the reference and that the text which you deleted with deliberately misleading edit summaries was completely supported by reference and not - as you claimed - inserted by "POV pushers" and that your loud edit summaries "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT" were, well, economical with the actualité. Glad we all agree on that now. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Thark, are these guys annoying you? You want me to...eh....give them a punch or somesuch? Just say the word. Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


When you guys are prepared to have a rational debate and stop throwing mud at each other perhaps you would let the rest of us know so we can discuss it. A simple pro and con summary for a start woudl be a good idea. In particular woudl Wotapalaver and TharkunColl please draw a line under the past and start again with the isseu--Snowded (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that TharkunColl deleted text with deliberately misleading edit summaries, deleting text that he said was not supported by reference, when it was. Wotapalaver (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If you truly believe that that's the full extent of the issue, then you should have reported him to WP:AN/I or WP:AIV by now. You haven't, and there's clearly more to it than that. TharkunColl may have been hasty or unclear in making his edits, but he has explained his reasons here - he didn't feel the text was relevant to this article (as opposed to the article on the British Empire or elsewhere). From what I've seen, rather than concentrating on countering that argument, you've repeated time and again that he was wrong in the way he attempted to address that issue. Please can we now move on from there and talk about what we want to happen now rather than arguing about what has already happened? What is the outstanding issue? Waggers (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The reasons given in the edit summaries were that the text was not supported by the reference, not that the text is somehow not directly relevant to the article (it probably is). In any case these are two separate issues. The edit summaries were accompanied by talk page assertions that the text had been inserted by "POV pushers" and in loud capital letters that the text was not supported by reference, with not a word claiming that it wasn't really relevant. The text, which was inserted ~18 months ago by a user originally called Sony-Youth was then deleted not once, but at least three times, each time with the loud assertion that it wasn't supported by reference. The claim that the text was not "relevant" arose as a distraction once the references were actually checked and the text was found to be verbatim supported by reference. Now that I know what ANI is I should probably report TharkunColl on there because - despite what admins have said here - I still feel this qualifies as vandalism of some sort. I do not believe that TharkunColl was looking at whether or not the text was relevant. The relevance is an issue that can be separately addressed.
As for your belief that "there's clearly more to it than that", what more is there? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You have already been advised against pursuing this personal vendetta on your own talk page by others. If I remember rightly there was also something about trading links going back to Saxon times across the North Atlantic which I changed at the same time. But that's not really the point of course. The real point is the knee-jerk reversions of all my edits within seconds of me making them. TharkunColl (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a personal vendetta, it's an insistence that truth and verifiability be honoured. As for your deletion of the text about Saxon times, those are mentioned in the reference too so you shouldn't have deleted that either. As for the knee-jerk reversions of your edits (A) I didn't make ANY of the reversions and (B) since your reason for the deletions was untrue, reversion seems appropriate. Perhaps the other editors were reverting you for personal reasons. I am insisting only on truth and verifiability. Wotapalaver (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Following Wagger's suggestion, see [9] It ends here. Wotapalaver (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Isles/Archive_17&oldid=1210399439"