Talk:British Isles/Archive 22

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

May or Do?

This article says many people "may" find it offensive. Surely, even the citations support the replacement of "may" with "do". I am thinking in particular of the reference to that effect from the democratically-elected government of Ireland. But its removal from school atlases and many other references easily support that many "do" in fact find the term British Isles offensive rather than simply "may". 78.16.186.184 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, the well runs dry far far too quickly in term of real-life examples of any "offense" taken. Even the Folens atlas people said they had no parental complaints, and it was precautionary measure. There are not anything like the kind of contemporary examples you would expect - there are virtually none in fact, outside of academic works that have their own internal weight. The fact we are allowing people to appropriate the word 'many' into this article, and re-weight it to refer to mainly themselves(!) is a total blight on Wikipedia.

As a double compromise (over "many" and the spokesman quote), the line should be something like this: '''Although commonly used worldwide (especially in a 'technical' manner in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history), the term British Isles has been controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people have found it objectionable.[r][r}[r] The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r]'''

All the extremely finite examples of the offense taken are built up over time: there is nothing to suggest it is commonly and notably in dispute as we speak, outside of people like yourself on (and often using) Wikipedia. The argument that the words "have found.." suggests the term is now fully accepted is just blatant stonewalling - it does nothing of the kind. It is only acceptable compromise IMO - really the word "many" should be removed, and a totally non-specific statement should be made. "many may" was a compromise but is just a doubly 'weasel-worded' expression.

Nobody in the Irish gov since 1947 has suggested that the term is discouraged, other than this 'spokesman' - so he should be quoted, if he is to be used at all. It was a quote - so why not quote it? Or we hiding an ambiguity here? He does not say in what capacity the term is discouraged - certainly is not legal terminology in the ROI. Maybe it is just in that capacity? We suggest they universally discourage it, with no evidence at all.

Compromises aside, the line should really just say that people have taken issue with the inherent ambiguity in the term, due to the Republic of Ireland not being part of Britain, and that though a number alternatives have been suggested, only 'Great Britain and Ireland' has really been used in its place. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Although commonly used worldwide, especially as a 'technical' term in sciences like geography, geology, archaeology, and natural history, the term 'British Isles' has been criticised for having the political term "British" within it. This is controversial in relation to Ireland [r][r}[r], as the Republic of Ireland in the island of Ireland is not British, and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships. The term is not part of the legal terminology of the Irish government, and a spokesperson for the Irish Embassy has said "we would discourage its usage".[r] A number of alternatives have been proposed throughout the history of the term, although many have been criticised themselves[r], and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

Line added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship, or both." --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision added: "and the citizens of Northern Ireland can have Irish-only, British-only, or joint identities, and hold British, Irish or dual citizenships." Nothing is as good as explaining the situation. If progress here remains deliberately stonewalled, and this information continues to be censored I'll take it to Arbcom and fight it on the widest scale I can. Enough is enough. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Added words: "a form of "Great Britain and Ireland". Some maps, like a National Geographic one, are using "Britain and Ireland".

Added clarity: "and only variations of 'Great Britain and Ireland' have been widely used. There is evidence that a form of "Britain and Ireland" has being increasingly used in mapmaking over recent years.[citation needed]"

I'm not fully sure about the last line, as "Great Britain and Ireland" has always been used in tandem with "British Isles" for maps. Is it really being used more now? We really need a quote that says this. You have always been able to get geographical and political ranges of maps and globes - they are each labelled differently. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you find any British Isles atlases published in the last 2 or 3 years? AA was publishing them for a long time annually, but they seem to have stopped around 2002. While there are plenty of Britain and Ireland/Great Britain and Ireland atlases published in 2008, 2007, I haven't been able to locate any 'British Isles' titled ones, even though these clearly were being published previously. Are there any? What publishers?

On your latest wording: I know for your BI guideline you want to specify the ROI for specific consideration, but it simply isn't true here to confine the controversy about the term to the ROI. The sources don't back this up either. There is, as I assume you are aware, an international agreed treaty that makes British *identity* optional in Northern Ireland. *This* is a big part of what makes the term problematic on the island of Ireland. I'm not advocating anything in regards to the BI guideline, but we cannot insert language here that isn't accurate in describing the nature of the controversy. It is NOT just because of the ROI and to say so just isn't accurate. Where is the "throughout the term's history" claim coming from? I'm perfectly supportive of quoting the Irish embassy spokeman directly and attributing the quote to 'a spokesman for the Irish embassy to the UK". Nuclare (talk) 04:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll re-write it to include Northern Ireland! --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've simply added "and the citizens of Northern Ireland have a choice of British or Irish citizenship." Good idea - makes it much better. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Some would dispute that wording. I don't think citizenship is the right word to use. The less debateable way of wording it would be in terms of identity. And I'm not sure adding more sentences on this issue to the intro. is the best solution. Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the "best solution" then? The sentences are notable, verifiable and relevant - they only haven't happened because certain editors have wanted the Intro kept short, sweet, and dispute-heavy. In Wikipedias terms that is 100% unacceptable. I'll put in 'identity' of you wish, though I can see what is coming: it will eventially be called "too long". But I know all the games. Progress will NOT be stopped forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with maps is that I can always remember "Great Britain and Ireland" road maps being in existence. Without a decent quote, it's verging on Original Research - but I'm happy to help construct a highly plausible case, certainly. I noticed National Geographic has moved BI down to the small text - but still used BI in their website. I honestly think been happening naturally over the years - I'm not sure there has necessarily been a great 'move' recently. But I'm willing to wave my doubts if a case can be made.

The issue wouldn't be the presence of GB&I, it would be the absence of BI. I know that this could verge into OR, but I'm not so much interested in inserting language into the Wiki page concerning this, as simply knowing what sources are or are not out there using the term or not. As I said, I'm still searching for evidence of whether some of the companies that clearly were regularly publishing BI atlases (AA, Reader's Digest) still are. I can't find any, thus far. Can you be more specific about where the NG "moving...to the small text" is? Nuclare (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the one. It says "British Isles" in the small text on the map (you can zoom in and see). It use to be the "British Isles" map. I'll look through the archives for my original link - I think the original webpage had the words "British Isles" in it too. Interesting that it is now "Britain and Ireland" - not "Great Britain and Ireland". It shows how NI is commonly seen as being in Britain, as well as being 'British'! --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Matt - I typed in the words "british isles offensive" into google and first up was "In Ireland, the term 'British Isles' has been considered as at least mildly offensive since the time of the struggles for Irish independence" [1] - in what, oddly, seems like a rival version of Wiki! Point is, there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable, in varying degrees, to most Irish people. Constant denial of this fact is becoming irritating and is impeding any chance of progress here. Sarah777 (talk) 12:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The "at least mildly offensive" example you have given (Citizendium is not a reliable source!), and your own concluding' words: "there are innumerable references to the fact that the term is unpalatable" simply do not combine. Who are you trying to kid? I'm going to construct a table that will force you to find 36 'reliable sources' past and 36 'reliable sources' present. I'll find them for usage of the word, and I'll start you off too. You will severely struggle for 'past', and as for 'present'? It will make you look foolish. I'll do the work involved as I'm tired of this shameless madness myself. All you have to do is withdraw just a little from a wildly untenable position - but you just simply won't budge. So I'll keep it up til you have no choice but to play fair, and the shrill screams of "no!" will finally be sent to bed. You have someone in me who is prepared to allow for your POV as much as possible. But your feet are just hooked to the floor.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pretty full of yourself I see Matt - nonetheless I had to chuckle at the idea that you could make me look foolish! Remember two things Matt re your 36 thingies: (1) I don't do tricks for the children (2) I don't play by your rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i am irish and i was just thinking (about the word british as claimed to be seen by irishmen) "why doesnt the guy round the back of the irish embassy in england tell the guy in the paper?" it may sell papers but sadly .. again why is it relative what the guy in the embassy said? it is a bit like the first paragraph where the author rattles about how they dont understand why the Isle of Man would be included as a british isle (the biggest island located right in the middle of britan and ireland) maybe its a part of france or africa. well i should bleeding cocoa. 89.204.230.38 (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that Talk:British_Isles/References should be a standard link at the top of every talk page (added: attached to this "British Isles" article). I've been reading the archives and came across it. It is easily the most informative list of (primarily academic) references concerning this name that have been collated on a single database. I did not know, for instance, that a letter in 1993 from a man in Athlone to the French channel TV5 resulted in TV5 removing the term Îles Britanniques (British Isles) from all its coverage and replacing it with the French for 'Great Britain and Ireland'. By placing this reference list at the top of every page, readers will have easy access to a wide range of published views on the name. Most people on this talk page are probably currently unaware of this list. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with myself (it's a good feeling, yes).

Agree - I was unaware that the French abandoned the POV term "British" Isles nearly 20 years ago. Sarah777 (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

But unfortunately they still use it in their Wiki: Îles Britanniques as do the Germans too. I have a propensity towards proposing to rename it in the French and German Wikipedia - if you acceded thereto, you could inform the Francophone Irish community and we could request to rename it on French and German Wiki by underscoring the facts quoted, if it backfires here, ok? Bogorm (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the french wikipedia rules on canvassing are, but I'm not sure we should be gathering support for a move change on annother wiki here. Narson (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There is merit in starting some changes on French/German Wikis. After all, such Wikis often start their articles based on initially translating En Wiki ones, so errors here like "British Isles" get replicated. Also, those Wikis might be more amenable to rational argument and less prone to Anglo-pov in terms of the balance of numbers. Worth considering if it is "legal" by the local rules. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Every talk page? You've got to be kidding, right? Rockpocket 01:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rock, that is picking nits and cheap point-scoring. You know what he means. Are you not ashamed that someone of your weightiness would come down to our level? Sarah777 (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No Sarah. I don't know what he means. Does he means every archive of this talk page (which I would not oppose), does he means every page that mentions British Isles in the title (which I also would not oppose), does he mean any article that mentions British Isles in the text (which I would) or does he mean every talk page (which is what he said, but surely cannot mean)? There is nothing in what he says that distinguishes between these options. Rockpocket 01:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, every talk page attached to this article on the British Isles is the subject. Your alternative meaning was creative, I'll give you that. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 02:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You never can tell, there are all sorts of crazies out there, 86.xx, so its worth being sure exactly what one is agreeing to. My advice to you is to be bold. Adding a link to relevant sources on a relevant talk page can only help inform the discussion. If there is serious opposition to it, someone will likely revert, and then a discussion can be had. Rockpocket 02:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

So when did this Talk page turn into a party? I suppose if IP's can get an article locked, we may as well let them run wild. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be forced to delete this if it gets out of hand, by the way. Nothing like fun, is there? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Matt, we'll restore it if you do. Crispness (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, I just put that references list concerning the name at the top of the page. One of you may know of a better 'notice' symbol or wording than the one I basically copied from above it. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BBC Article on the Matter

Not sure if this is of interest to those discussing this topic. Though it certainly comes down on the 'pro-British Isles' side (or at least, it asserts the definition in fairly clear terms) it does also give a pretty reasoned and balanced discussion I think of the issues at hand. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7604057.stm (lights touchpaper and walks away...) Pretty Green (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very inaccurate. Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles

Thats not true. Great Britain is not a country, ROI is not the name of a country either. NI seems to not exist and the Channel Islands are not necessarily in the British Isles. What that article has to do with this issue I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatsGrand (talk • contribs) 17:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, voluminous neglect of Northern Ireland, there. So, "England, Scotland, Wales = Great Britain"? OK. And "Northern Ireland + Great Britain = United Kingdom"? OK, too. But "Great Britain + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles"? (sniggers) --78.152.231.112 (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty balanced I think - it illustrates that because England is overwhelming in terms of size in Britain, abroad the idea that Britain = England (and thus Scotland is part of England) is inevitable. Thus describing these islands as "British Isles" inevitably misleads people into believing that Ireland is British. Which is why Wiki should not use the name to include Ireland. Sarah777 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, the BBC article says "UK + Republic of Ireland + Channel Isles + IoM = British Isles". Note, that's UK, not GB as you two have read it as. So by using the UK they have included Northern Ireland. (sniggers) Deamon138 (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, quite obviously they corrected that error, but then didn't fix the rest. It said GB intially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.215.157 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Acctually thats a correction to their article, Deamon138. Then again, why we are using the magazine section of the BBC for anything is beyond me. Narson (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (EC)

There are quite a few inaccuracies in that BBC article, including "GB also includes Isle of Wight, Scillies, Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland, but not Isle of Man and Channel Isles" - actually, Great Britain is an island, so does not include other islands. England includes the Isle of Wight, but strictly speaking Great Britain doesn't. But then again, this is the BBC, which is allegedly a reliable source, and Wikipedia is about reliability not truth, so maybe we're all wrong. How depressing. Waggers (talk) 20:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

But isn't that the point? These terms are all fleixible??? The sooner the pedants on this article learn that the better. Pretty Green (talk) 09:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

May

The term may in "The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where many people may[5] find the term offensive or objectionable" should be removed. Its predictive; we should be descriptive. We are not a wikitravel, our job is not to describe what a reader may find there. If that is not what is meant, then the term is redundant, because either "many people" find it or offensive or they don't. Either way, it shouldn't be there. If there are no objections I will remove it. Rockpocket 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The word "may" is weasel wording. Ditch it quick.89.129.142.89 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Lose "people" too. Unless the dogs and cats are the ones who find it offensive it is safe to say that "many" would mean "people". 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And in the interests of balance and accuracy, we should also say that many don't find it offensive - backing this up with quotations from government ministers using it (Sile de Valera), and its use in Irish parliamentary reports, for example. ðarkun coll 08:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Except the fact of occasional usage is not the same as evidence that many don't find it offensive. Also, from reading the dispute page it's also clear that when Irish parliamentary reports use the term they often use it in a way that excludes Ireland, or at least ROI. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm tempted to put forward an totally unwieldy proposal that is actually balanced in this kind of way, simply to force people into taking my considered proposals seriously! We could present a fully detailed ref list (using lots of bold of course) for each one of theirs, and insist on presenting the positive first, per MOS:"many Irish use the term[r], and many find it uniting[r] [2], but many may find it offensive or objectionable[r]. The Irish government has discouraged its usage, though the spokesman did not specify who they are discouraging[r]; there are examples of them using it themselves,[r] and in 1999 a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles.[r]" We only need a couple of examples to match theirs, and we can fill the talk page with cries of "many many many"! Turn your nose up at every course and what do you end up with? Fish heads.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of the obfuscation of simple proposals with unwieldy comments, its not clear whether you actually object to this or not. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could this new unwieldy proposal be more unwieldy than the proposals above? In any case, the interesting fact for most readers is that the term is controversial in the first place. That's often new information for readers. Interestingness is a good criteria for inclusion in the introduction. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

" a British Irish Council was formed in London which gave constitutional recognition to the British Isles. It isn't called the 'British Isles' by the Council, so I'm confused by what you mean here. If anything the fact that there is a institution exactly contiguous with the 'BI' but which chose rather consciously *not* to use "BI" seems to reinforce the idea that "BI" is an unacceptable name, if anything. Or what are you trying to say here? It is also a distinct possiblity that the reason the spokesman didn't specify who they discourage is because it was a general discouragement to *everyone*. Who would he specify?? And has anyone got a Irish govt official using the term "BI" in the last couple years (since the Dail comments on the issue)? That's a sincere request for sources, if they are out there. Nuclare (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" was inserted as a compromise. If its coming out, then it should be changed to "some" find it offensive - or better still, a form of words should be used that avoids putting a number on how many find the term offensive, unless it is sourced. At present, it isn't.

Anon IP - only last week I posted examples of FF TDs and Senators using the term in the Dáil specifically including Ireland within BI. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick look at the history of the naming dispute page shows that such examples, and examples of usage in the Irish parliament that excludes Ireland have been there for a long time. It's still entirely beside the point of "many" or "may". If you are not offended but others are offended then an example of your use is no proof of anything about others. Similarly, my point about the description "nationalists" being incorrectly used to argue that only a small number find the term offensive is still valid. You can't present "nationalists" as being a minority in a country where the main political party describes itself as Republican, whether or not you can find occasional use by members of that party. To do so would be a logical nonsense, apart from being OR. Meantime "many" is well supported by reference. There seems to be lots of IDONTLIKE it about that fact, much as there is lots of IDONTLIKEIT about the fact that the term is in common international use. 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"May" is a pretty poor compromise, since it informs nothing about the number of people at all. If we need a term to deal with the number issue, then lets do that. "May" doesn't. For example, if the point is that a number or proportion (of unknown size) of Irish people find it offensive and a number or proportion (of unknown size) don't, then simply say: ""The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland,[4] where a proportion/number of people [5] find the term offensive or objectionable". This seems to be most neutral way of presenting the facts, without attempting to be quantitative. Rockpocket 18:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go by the number of refs they have you may as well un-bracket "5"!

I've tried things like "have found" and have been told that it makes it look like its only in the past!. The proportion isn't unknown to us - we would expect many sources to be around if "many" people were offended and objecting to it. Instead we have many sources of people using the term, and a clutch of negative refs compiled over months.

It's not just the lack of evidence, the evidence itself (esp the 'no complaints, but precautionary removal' Folens example) shows us that it's not as significant as the rather loaded term, "a number of people" would wrongly suggest to readers that it is. That is surely as ambiguous a compromise as "may" - but a lot more weighty, imo.

Evidence permitted, the logical thing to say is "where people can find it offensive or objectionable." but it would be outrageous abuse of completely unverified and far too-finite refs for us to do that. So we are trading weasel words. We need to use other language altogether to deal with this - not appropriate words from the unverified context of a couple of selected authors. --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of a "a number of people" or "a proportion of people" is that it means exactly what it says. That number my be a handful or may be millions, the proportion may be tiny or may be large. Neither is implied. By avoiding adding a quantitative value to the number or proportion removes any implication, unlike "many" or "few". If I understand you right, your argument is one of due weight: that those that find it objectionable are insignificant enough for it not be be mentioned in the lead. That may be so, I really don't know. But for as long as the sentence is there, it should couched in better terms than it currently is. Also, "where people can find it offensive or objectionable" is either redundantly meaningless or grammatically incorrect. People can find it objectionable anywhere, so why should we single Ireland out? The point is that, according to the sources presented, an undefined proportion of people do find it objectionable in Ireland. "Can find it" and "do find it" do not mean the same thing. Rockpocket 23:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the sources presented, many do find it objectionable or offensive. No source is presented to demonstrate that many don't find it objectionable or offensive. If such is the case then sources must be provided. It's not sufficiently obvious to stand without sources. Similarly, "may" is an unsupported weasel word. On the basis of the sources it's not "may" it's "do". 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is clearly that you are joining this without seeing all recurring dialogue over the last 6 months or so: Nobody wants the word "may"! The problem is that it's the only thing a group of editors have allowed to temper the "objectionable and offensive" line - hence why I (and others) replace it when it is plucked out. It's to stop the intro from being even worse. Replacing it is the only edit I'm ever allowed to make on this part of the artice - and even that can lead to the article getting locked again when it only been open to edits for a week or two!

This chat is a distraction by a couple of IPS's - it's been over and over, and only new words will make it right. We have to stick to proposals: the article locking admin always asks to see 'consensus' before it is unlocked (which, if you look back, I have many sour opinions about, given the "over my dead body" environment in here regarding changing the lead. There has been an endless lock-on-previous cycle that has kept this lead in place for probably all year. One edit inevitable exchange happens, and an IP and a sock come from nowhere, and its locked again - its that easy for them to the article they want. This place is were a jovial quote of that "there's no wrong edit to lock an article on" essay is truly painful to behold. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You see, all I can see is a few editors arguing that their personal view is to be believed rather than references. Many is in the references, not some or few or most or almost all or a majority or nearly everyone or just a few nuts, but simply many. Offensive and objectionable are both in the references, not other words but those ones. The issue, as far as I can see, is that there are people who want to put weasel words in the article because THEYDONTLIKEIT. Arguments based purely on IDONTLIKEIT deserve no respect in Wikipedia. 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Remove - "may" is used as a weasel word - not to mention that it is meaningless in the context: In what sense do we mean "may" 1) that many "possibly" find the term offensive; 2) that many "are allowed to" find the term offensive or objectionable; or 3) that many "are wished to" find the term offensive. (2) and (3) are ridiculous and (1) is not the kind of speculation that this encyclopedia engages in - not ever, never mind when there are at least three references that use the words "many" and "objectionable" in the same sentence and goodness knows how many more supporting references for the matter generally. It is a fact: "many" find the term "objectionable". There is no need to labour the point, dwell upon it, or give it undue weight - but it is an injustice to this encyclopedia to disguise it in order to mollify the sensibilities of the few that for whatever reason would deny it. ("Offensive" is OTT, however.) --78.152.249.77 (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Only if we also point out that many don't find it objectionable. To state one without the other gives Undue Weight to a particular opinion. ðarkun coll 23:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, pray tell, is "offensive" "over the top"? It is not. I do not merely object to people assuming I am British because of this "British Isles" claim: I am unequivocally offended by that assumption. Do you really think Irish people should not be offended at being thought of as British, the culture which has persecuted so many nations, including our own? You may feel it is "ott", but the sources support offensive. And there is centuries of offense (to put it mildly) in what the British state has been doing in Ireland since 1603. It is absurd that we must defend our Irishness against you people. We are Irish, not British. When will your fanatically imperialist British culture just leave the Irish people alone, and accept their right to reject your nationalist political projects like the propagation of Britishness? And you do have a fanatically imperialist culture, unless you are all denying your state's extraordinary history, in world terms, for the past few centuries. I am offended to be associated with that barbarism and abject inhumanity: deeply offended. I really do hope that I have made myself impeccably clear. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone call Dave Souza again. He sorted this out last time and his proposal got consensus at something like 11-1. In any case, "may" is not supported by verifiable sources whereas "Many" is supported by verifiable sources. The dissenter the last time was, unless I'm mistaken, Matt Lewis - who has been maintaining this war for months now, apparently purely on the basis of HEDOESNTLIKEIT. Surely this counts as disruption? 89.129.143.43 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave Souza supported my own original proposal! Someone made a usurping poll out of a comment of his (originally mistaken), and I had reisgned by the time it went to vote - and you were still slagging me off after I had gone (in your actual account). It was a vote for No Change from the usual suspects, including at least one sockpuppet, and at least two editors voting just to get closure and the article unlocked again. Dave Souza hiself didn't vote (I wonder why?). --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipéire talking to Watapalava - how sweet! (and how easily proven too). Only in this article. Wotapalaver - you not logging in makes you the biggest coward on Wikipedia. Really - what a coward you are. You've cowered away ever since I wrote that. The amount of time you say my full name as an IP is painfully pathetic to read - but then your were 'crossing the line' with my name just a 'tad' when you chose to log in though. Get aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa life.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe that calling other editors cowards is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Also, your idea that an editor would cower away because you wrote a comment on their talk page is eye-opening. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, must you insist upon this extraordinary paranoia each time you don't like what Irish people have to say on this topic? A quick perusal of your edit history reveals that you are traversing numerous talk pages belonging to wikipedia editors expressing this paranoia about a wide array of editors (in between referring to editors as "chumps", etc.). Do you not think your actions are all just a bit OCD? Deep breath, disengage. Have a pint. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

86.xx. Whether you are offended is entirely irrelevant. If you continue to couch your arguments on this page in terms of your personal distaste of being considered "British" then I will begin to delete your comments, because the are entirely unhelpful. This is not a forum, stop using it as one. Mat and 86.xx - how many times do you have to be told to quit the personal attacks? Despite the claims and counterclaims, on current evidence you are both, quite frankly, as bad as each other. If you are not able to discuss the content without soapboxing or trading insults then I'll make moves to have you both put on a probation and restricted from this page. C'mon guys, pull it together.

I'm going to repeat my suggestion: if the number of people who do and do not find it objectionable is the problem then use language that is non-quantitative. This is the obvious way to ensure neutrality and balance without misrepresenting sources. Is anyone able to look past their entrenched positions on this issue or are we going to continue going round in circles? Rockpocket 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

But your non-quantitive suggestion seemed more suggestive (even conclusive) than the word "many" itself. I don't want to be told I'm as bad as a socking IP! It's not my fault this page has got like it has - I've done nothing but try and work on it in the face of this. It's bean treated appallingly by editors an admin alike if you ask me. If you want more evidence you will have to read upwards. Have you read the last proposal? What do you think of it? I'll keep off this page until I improve on it per suggestions - I'm not going to risk being sectioned! If you read all my prosals I am anything but entrenched. What I've always done is compromise fairness in the most positive may I can, as fairness itself has simply not been allowed in here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of people who find it offensive/objectionable has been described in verifiable sources as "many". IIRC, in other sources the phrase "often" was used. There is no further problem and avoiding the words used in verifiable sources would certainly qualify and misrepresenting the sources, and as counter to correct editing. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time, as attempted before, to start a formal process on this. This ongoing rejection of verifiable and highly reputable sources is tedious, to say the least. The last time we started a formal process we got to consensus pretty fast. Suddenly the people with personal views and no references seemed to fade away. 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Rockpocket. We have two references for "many" there, and they both say many "object" - nothing about "offense". Neither reference indicates where exactly they're getting their facts from. In the absence of real data, non-quantitative wording is the way to go. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We have non-quantitive wording in "many". "Many" does not imply a majority e.g. "many books on Amazon cost over €30 but most cost less than that." This is in part what is so wrong about using "may" in that context - what does it mean? "A large number might find it offensive (depending on their mood)" or "it might be that a large number find it offensive"? "Many" by itself is pulled directly from the refs and no more about it that what is known - a large undetermined number find the term objectionable. (Again, "offensive" s unsupported and should be removed IMHO). --Ip user account (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. However the problem with "many" is that it implies relative quantity ("many" is typically more than "few" but less than "most", for example). So it is perhaps more correct to say it semi-quantitative, rather than non-quantitative. The further problem is is not likely to be quantified: someone decided that "many" object without ever actually ascertaining how "many" that is (because if they had, they would have told us instead of using the word "many"!) In other words, it is an impression (though, perhaps a very educated one), rather than a cold, hard fact. The question then is how reliable are the source(s) that use many? Are they sufficiently authoritative and neutral to use their "many" without qualification? If so, then, then great. If not, then "many" can still be used, but should probably be attributed (i.e. "term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where according to X, many people find the term objectionable"). This should be balanced up if we are serious about having a balanced, and nuanced, article. Rockpocket 02:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

But do you have an opinion on the sources, Rockpocket, in relation to this issue? Both those at the BI page and at the Refs page? Nuclare (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a read though of all the sources and I would say that there are multiple independent sources, with no obvious bias, that use the term "many". However... there are also multiple independent sources, with no obvious bias, that use the term "some," and others that claim "The Irish" or "Irishmen" find it objectionable (clearly meant as a generalization). Others still document that "Irish Historians" or "Irish Nationalists" object to the British Isles, though these groups are mentioned in context, and presumably not meant to be exclusive. None of them strike me a so authoritative as to give one significant weight over the others. So, if the argument is that "many" is sourced (and it certainly is), then one could also easily replace it with "some" or "Irish Nationalists" and provide multiple, reliable sources to back it up. Taking all that into account, I would still recommend the use of entirely non-quantitative language ("a number" or "a proportion" of Irish people...) which can be justified by all these sources without bias or prejudice. As far as I can tell, that is the only solution that does not result in the cherry-picking of sources to justify a particular POV preference. Rockpocket 17:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've read the sources too. "Many" regard it as objectionable or offensive. "Some" regard it as less appropriate or "not an easy term to accept". We could put both of those in. "...many regard the term as objectionable or offensive, while some only regard it as less than appropriate or not an easy term to accept". Cool. That way we respect even more of the sources. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

At the outset let me say that I have no problem with dumping "offensive" and just using a broader term that would take in everyone from the deeply offended to the slightly annoyed: "...where many object to the term," for example. There's just something about the wording "a number" or "a proportion of" that doesn't sound right. They're as weaselly as 'may.' "A number" has the vibe of something you could count on your fingers and 'a proportion' is soooo vague as to be almost meaningless. If one looks in detail at the 'some' sources, they don't actually refer directly to Ireland in the same way most of the "many" ones do: 1) "However, like other such terms it is probably not an easy term to accept for some who inhabit one or other part of these islands (particularly Ireland)" This 'some' does refer to Ireland, but it is also doubling for 'other part of these islands' as well. The "particularly Ireland" comment implies that whatever is meant by "some," Ireland's "some" has to be significantly higher than the other parts, rendering "some" incredibly broad and vague here. 2) "...once most of the island of Ireland became the independent Republic of Ireland it seemed to some no longer appropriate." This doesn't even refer to the Irish. It's a general comment that would be referring to anyone anywhere approaching the subject. 3) "Since the early twentieth century, that nomenclature has been regarded by some as increasingly less usable.". Again, the Irish aren't even mentioned here. 4) "The very concept of 'the British Isles' is rejected by some Irish historians." This does refer to the Irish, but specifically historians. 4) "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'" Another example where "some" is being used more broadly without reference to the Irish. But when the Irish are specified, they switch to "many." Nuclare (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Nuclare asking for example of the term being used in the Dáil recently, there are (to use a word we love) many examples - see here for Google results. It has to be said that many (to use the word again) are examples of our esteemed deputies objecting to the term. Indeed the exchange recorded in the first of them could have been lifted from this very page. --Ip user account (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see from that "recent" example that a 'Mr Donegan' used the term "British Isles" in 1968. Surely this was not Paddy "Thundering Disgrace" Donegan, a man who makes Margaret Thatcher seem like a communist? My instinct was right about the sort of people who use this term. Meanwhile I see recently, in 2007: 'The Minister for Education and Science could also come to the Chamber to update Members as to why maps provided in primary schools currently include Ireland in the British Isles.' And Enda Kenny's clear definition of "British Isles" in 2007: 'If Great Britain intends to have an electronic border around the British Isles, Scotland, England and Wales, what does that mean in terms of entry to Northern Ireland from Great Britain?' My favourite one comes from 10 October 2007 when a Senator said: 'Many parts of the British Isles,including the North and South of Ireland, could reap dividends from this.' The immediate response from an undisclosed number of Senators was: 'The British Isles?' hehe. And not even an election in sight. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually what I was looking for were govt officials, as distinct from 'ordinary' members of the Dail. And more specifically uses after D.Ahern (Sept. '05) made his comments in the Dail saying that the govt doesn't use the term. If that search you've posted is exhaustive (do we think it pulls up all uses??), in terms of Dail use, looks like it's pulling up 8 uses of BI in the Dail since Sept. '05, one of which is members immediately questioning why the term was used, one more is a statement of someone who doesn't think maps should show Ireland as part of the BI, 2 more are uses where BI is being used as something distinct from Ireland, one more is someone using the term only as part of the naming of an organization, and one more is used by a guest speaker rather than a Dail member. So, that leaves two uses by two (non-govt) Dail members since Sept. 2005 (one of which was immediately found questionable by some fellow members). Well, at least that's what that search is accessing. Nuclare (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but completely irrelevant. Even if everyone in the RoI stopped using the term (which they haven't), they would still be vastly outnumbered by the population of the UK - by about 15 to 1. If 94% of the people who live in a place call it by a particular name, then that's its name. ðarkun coll 07:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless you live in Daingean Uí Chúis. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My, do we like distorting reality to suit an agenda. Seeing as he has brought it up, User:Bastun omits the minor matter that most people in An Daingean were not allowed to vote in that above alluded to plebiscite as the 1946 Local Government Act defined the town as extending to a single townland and in the process forbade two-thirds of the present town a right to vote. Ooops.. Oh, and the leaders of the 'Dingle' campaign happen to have been outsiders, to be more specific blow-ins from Clare and Roscommon, among other places. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good old-fashioned anti-Irish prejudice, of course. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

For Bastun, who counts only two examples of "many" finding the term "offensive". At least one example on the references page says that it is "often" offensive. Is "often" more or less than "many" or are they roughly equivalent? Other examples say the term is "grating" and "almost unsayable" (paraphrases, not exact quotes), and indicate beyond argument that "many" is a neutral and accurate word. The Dail and Senate exchanges linked are also illustrative. 1952, 1968, etc., with phrases like "what was one time known as the British Isles", "we are not in the British Isles", plus the comments recorded only as the Senate reacting to the very use of the term with disdain are all significant. Again, people may not like that the term is regarded as offensive/objectionable by many people in Ireland, but it is - and the references unambiguously support this. 81.32.182.214 (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So if being more vague is not accepted, why not be more precise? The term British Isles has been rejected by the Irish legislature in the past as <insert what they thought of it>, a view that is also seen <in parts of Ireland/in the wider community/Whatever>? Personally I've no objective to many or some or groups within Ireland. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because if we make the intro longer certain editors will scream that the issue is being given too much importance. Currently the intro is short and precise and supported by reference except for the weasel word "may", which is neither precise nor supported by reference. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring 2

I came to look at this page to find it was blocked becarse of edit warring. What is there to war about???92.4.245.131 (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

<Soapboxing removed, I did warn you 88.xx> The edit warring is largely over disagreements over the use of the term "British Isles" in relation to Ireland ~~(the state)~~. Rockpocket 22:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockpocket: You are mistaken to view it as an objection just to its use over the state, Ireland. The term British Isles is at least as rejected in the hills of Mullaghbawn, Ballycastle, and Coalisland, to take a quick handful. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine, whatever. The point is the edit-warring is over the article, not the actual Irish/British conflict. Rockpocket 00:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Let us not forget that the Irish Republic only covers part of Ireland, and was gerrymandered to exclude those elements of the Irish population who favoured continued union. In short, it's an illegitimate state (insofar at it claims to represent Ireland). Be that as it may, it can do nothing to affect how the English language is used worldwide, and indeed in the British Isles, because no government can legislate for language. ðarkun coll 23:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read any reliable history books Tharky? --Snowded TALK 23:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. ðarkun coll 23:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you have but let's start with this, seeing as you have chosen to digress. The Irish Republic covers all of Ireland (even if its realisation is currently on hold) whereas the Republic of Ireland does not cover the whole country. If you cannot get the basics correct, what hope is there for your more substantive views? Views, such as the matter of gerrymandering, which was in fact done by servants of the British state in alliance with the Unionists without any reference to the majority population of Ireland, whose representatives refused to take part in the partition of their country. This is basic. As for your most peculiar view of the English language as stagnant, I've read the English language at various times in its history and, as shocking as it clearly is for you, there have been enormous changes in that language. Words change, meanings change, usage begins, usage declines. Shocking, eh. But a quaint little idea of yours at any rate. P.S. Concerning your belief that a government is unable to legislate for language, I think you'll find that various British governments in Ireland have done precisely that. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the distinction you are trying to foist on the rest of the world between "Irish Republic" and "Republic of Ireland" - I simply regard it as risible, considering that the two phrases have been interchangeable in English for decades. And yes, I also know full well that the gerrymandering was done at the behest of the Unionists, and that Southern Ireland was therefore gerrymandered by default - but this doesn't mean it wasn't gerrymandered though. And not once have I ever said that the English language is stagnant. Meanings can and do change. In this particular case, however, that of the British Isles, no meaning has changed - just consult any dictionary. As for governments legislating for language - if the Irish government sent an armed force to any area that was using a phrase it wanted to change then it might be able to legislate for language. But it doesn't, so it can't. ðarkun coll 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

'the distinction you are trying to foist on the rest of the world between "Irish Republic" and "Republic of Ireland" - I simply regard it as risible, considering that the two phrases have been interchangeable in English for decades' -hilarious. So now the 'interchangeability' of use between people who are, as a matter of fact, utterly ignorant and misinformed is to be favoured over an accurate command of the Queen's English? I thought-nay, I hoped- that this sort of anti-intellectualism in English political culture died with the iconclasts of the seventeenth-century British Taliban. Alas. Your entire approach to Irish-related terminology on Wikipedia appears strongly to be based on WP: I Don't Like It, rather than on an acceptance of realities in Ireland. If the contrived terminology used by British nationalists such as you (as opposed to open-minded, confident and intelligent Englishmen like Tony Benn) were to determine accurate use of English on wikipedia, wikipedia would not last as anything other than a British version of Stormfront. The new Irish article would be titled 'Eire' and would be permeated by little Punch portrayals of Irish people. It's 2008, not 1848. Get over your loss of empire and grow up. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that User:TharkunColl is again going around wikipedia imposing "British Isles" into articles just to make a political point- such as here.86.42.119.12 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. To impose something implies it is not welcome, and I have no political point to make whatsoever - indeed, I am opposed to political insertions or exclusions. And in any case, in the above example I was merely reverting a politically motivated removal of the term. ðarkun coll 07:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well the travesty of history above clearly indicates a political POV --Snowded TALK 00:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. It is political POVism that I have been editing against all this time. ðarkun coll 07:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, have you ever read M:MPOV. Sort of fits doesn't it. Have you heard the one about the proud mother watching her son's passing out parade, who exclaimed "Look, they're all out of step except my Freddie!", and she belived it! Crispness (talk) 08:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. The fact is that this article has been hijacked by those with a political and nationalist axe to grind. All I'm doing is trying to redress the blance insofar as I can. If you think that's megalomaniacal then you have a pretty insubstantial grasp on what the word actually means, in my opinion. ðarkun coll 08:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tharky, if you have got to the point where you believe nationalists gerrymandered the break up of Ireland to exclude unionists from the republic then you have moved into a realm of unreality from which you may never recover. --Snowded TALK 09:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually bother reading what I wrote above? Unionists gerrymandered Northern Ireland, so Southern Ireland was gerrymandered by default. It was still gerrymandered though. Had an all-Ireland state been established instead, it would have developed very differently indeed, with its large Protestant minority. ðarkun coll 09:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to this guys? It seems Rocket's proposals above are far more interesting to discuss than you chaps circling around the drain of incivility and playing Smack My Historical Bitch Up. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As above, can this section be archived in the same way as British Isles used in Italian schools was, from the post beginning "Let us not forget that..." onwards. It has descended into a forum. --89.19.91.84 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If people want to make ridiculous claims about Irish history, go over to Boards.ie, let me know, and I'll deal with you there. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 23:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is rididculous

Next thing people will say is it's Irish-British isles. This is stupid. Whoever it was who implied you have to go back to the 17th century to find conflict between the Irish and British is ignorant. And whoever continues to post non-neutral additions to the article, simply shouldn't. It's that easy. Honestly, this seems more likely to be used ignorantly in my country, than in Ireland OR Britain. Just let it go people. Both sides. Really.

Nice to see you making helpful, non-provocative and educated comment on an issue and context in which you are self-evidently a deep expert. --Snowded TALK 11:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether what I said was ignorant or educated, I was simply trying to say can't you just get along. I look at conflict and I just want people to stop, but of course it's not that simple and probably futile even saying anything, but I did anyway. I should have used different words,and it was admittedly hypocritical to speak of one comment then mention neutrality. I may only know bits and pieces of the issue, but I get the idea, and your arrogance isn't so much better than my ignorance. Have a nice day.

edit: And despite the fact I may be a fool in your eyes and it means little, I hope your wife gets well soon and it's not serious, and I wish you both good luck, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.74.69 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The dispute at this article is not ridicules, I'm ridicules. The dispute is frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Wars (more)

I'm sure some people do find the term offensive, and you can no doubt find impeccable refererences to back this up. However, there'll be few, if any, references for people not finding it offensive, unless of course Oxford have got around to publishing their Dictionary of Terms that People Don't Find Offensive (and if they have, I expect British Isles to be on the front page). The point is, offensive or not, referenced or not, the issue should not be over-egged here. A single mention, with direction to the naming dispute article is all that's required. MidnightBlueMan (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, now you're sure that some people DO find the term offensive but you're confident that the issue is being over egged here. Should I quote from the first reference on the /References page? "British Isles, a contentious term if there ever was one". Hard to "over egg" that, really. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why don't you go and look up "over egging" in a dictionary. There's no issue that some people (a couple of relatively unknown authors in this case) find the term offensive, but we don't need a list of everyone that does so, in this article. The fact that some people find it offensive is almost a footnote. MidnightBlue 18:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A funny aside. I looked "over egging" up in a couple of dictionaries. Pocket Oxford...not there. Concise Oxford...not there. Merriam-Websters online...not there. Dictionary.com....not there. It does come up in the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms, but since we shouldn't apparently regard Cambridge as a serious source I'm left wondering how to find out what "over egging" might mean from an authoritative source. Perhaps MidnightBlueMan regards himself as an authoritative source. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, MidnightBlue just said "a dictionary" - he didn't say it had to meet WP reliable source criteria, any dictionary will do. But it IS in the Compact Oxford as well as the free dictionary, Wiktionary, yourdictionary.com and those are just some of the online ones. Honestly, putting words into other editors' mouths and then trying to score points off of them is not condusive to making progress here, it just reeks of immaturity. No more "funny asides" like that please - funny they are not (nor accurate). Waggers (talk) 07:43, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But it's not in the Pocket or the Concise or any of the other ones I listed. I was totally accurate in what I said re dictionaries. I may be guilty of sarcasm in response to mass reference deleting, but I'm not guilty of inaccuracy. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of relatively unknown authors? Laughable. You are unknown. They are authors published by reputable academic presses. Wikipedia pays attention to what they say, not what you think you know. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mate, you don't seem to be able to comprehend what I'm saying. Maybe I'm not explaining myself particularly well, but in any event I don't think it's worth continuing our discussion, so goodbye to you. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I comprehend what you are saying very well. Like several other people, YOUDONTLIKEIT. Come with serious comments and then you'll be worth taking seriously. Meantime you're just another person who thinks they know more than serious published authors. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'relatively unknown authors'? Hello? Have you even read the references page yet? Clearly not. Nicholas Canny, by a long long shot the leading authority on early modern Ireland since at least 1976 when his internationally acclaimed and groundbreaking Elizabethan Conquest of Ireland was published, is "relatively unknown"? There is no more respected Irish historian alive today (except perhaps Kenneth Nicholls). Jennifer Todd, an English-educated leading authority on the conflict in Northern Ireland is "relatively unknown"? Even Arthur Aughey, the most prominent academic defending unionist/loyalist self-determination can acknowledge the offense of this term- and he is relatively unknown? And John Morill of Cambridge? And J. G. A. Pocock, who has most famously articulated Irish objections to the term, is "relatively unknown"? These are just five exceptionally prominent academics from both sides in Ireland and abroad who have acknowledged in print the objectionable and offensiveness of the term British Isles. There are many more on the references page (which you would have read had you been serious about this article). So, the question really is, why are you in denial about this? Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and say this in simple language - read all the words above, again, and you'll see that you've misunderstood something. It's OK, we all do it from time-to-time. And what pray, am I supposed to be in denial about? My view, as given above, is that this article is pretty much crap. Maybe you think I'm in denial about it being a bloody good article? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Then propose IMPROVEMENTS. Look IMPROVEMENTS up in a dictionary. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

(To 79.155.245.81): I suggest you look up a number of things yourself. You can start off with WP:AGF, given the sarcastic replies you have given to people here. The comments seem to be heading in the direction of being disruptive. "Over egging" is a common enough phrase as in "Over egging the pudding", and it means to over exaggerate. I would have thought that most people who have English as their first language and who have the ability to contribute to wikipedia would be familiar with the phrase, and I wonder what your display of looking and failing to find it in dictionaries was meant to achieve here. Try the paper version of the full Oxford Dictionary if you really do not know what it means. There are also numerous examples of its use if one carries out even a cursory search using Google for the phrase, and the context in which it is being used clearly indicates what it means. I suggest you try not to play the ignorant smart card again, and try to be constructive and collaborative more in future. DDStretch (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. I struggle to assume good faith with people who crash in and start mass-deleting references. I will continue to struggle to assume good faith with such people until such time as they demonstrate good intentions. As for my sarcasm, it's a consequence of their earlier disruption and remarks. As for me contributing, I contribute by sourcing good references to the articles where I edit on Wikipedia. I do NOT put my own opinions before reference. Now if we could get other editors to operate in the same manner there would be no need for sarcasm. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, "over egging the pudding" was not the first thing I found on google. It was quite low down in the first page of results before I got an explanation and I did not previously really know what "over egging" meant. It's a somewhat antique phrase. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But most appropriate here. It sums up the situation well. This article seems to have been hijacked by editors trying to make a point. LemonMonday (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You can say that again: hijacked by British nationalists trying to make a traditional British nationalist claim that Ireland is a 'British' isle. Unfortunately for you people, the Irish are here this time and the greater military power of your empire through the centuries does not matter. Isn't the internet great? 86.42.65.157 (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was hijacked rather brutally only recently by a user obviously trying to make a point. [3] There was certainly no attempt to make any improvements. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 14:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

And then we have characters like 86.42.x.x who also don't get the point. It doesn't matter whether he/she hates the term. It matters whether the extensive dislike is (i) well documented and (ii) impacting usage. (i) is certainly true and widely documented by leading authorities and (ii) is apparently true and is increasingly clearly supported. Unfortunately we also have factors (iii) and (iv), which are the nutters on both sides. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Personal issues (my wife is ill) have kept me away from any serious WIkipedia work other than intermittent clearing vandalism this evening. I'll do my best to get a proposal up tomorrow, sorry not to have completed tonight as originally attended.--Snowded TALK 21:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, some things are WAY more important than Wikipedia - you shouldn't feel guilty about that. There's no deadline here, take your time. Waggers (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for your troubles, Snowded.Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Procedural note

Resolved

The third of October has come and gone; the date on the protection template should be either modified or removed, so that the page does not appear on Category:Protected pages with expiry expired for no good reason. Thank you. Waltham, The Duke of 18:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the template can be fixed now? Sarah777 (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the protection template to reflect the indefinite protection (until the dispute is resolved). Sarah, please see the protecting admin or, if you can demonstrate a consensus on the dispute that precipitated the protection, I can unprotect. Rockpocket 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a single concrete suggestion has come from the people who started the edit war. They may have made their point and gone away. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Strange - my intention was for the protection to expire automatically, not be indefinite. I protected the page using WP:Twinkle - perhaps there's a bug in that script. In any case, are there any objections to me (or Rockpocket, or whoever) unprotecting the article now? Waggers (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

My worry is edit warring to get a new statement protected --Snowded TALK 15:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Here's a sample as what's in this article:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where many people find the term objectionable; the Irish government also discourages its usage. There is evidence that as a result of these problems, "Britain and Ireland" is becoming a preferred description.

The Economic History Society style guide suggests that the term should be avoided.

Some critics of the term "British Isles" refer to Britain and Ireland as "the archipelago". As mentioned above, the term "British Isles" is controversial in relation to Ireland. One map publisher recently decided to abandon using the term in Ireland while continuing to use it in Britain.

While it is probably the most common term used to describe the islands, use of this term is not universally accepted and is sometimes rejected in Ireland.

And then bolded in the references, we have:

This title no longer pleases all the inhabitants of the islands

the term ‘British Isles’ is one which Irishmen reject and Englishmen decline to take quite seriously

the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities

the term is increasingly unacceptable to Irish historians in particular

many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable

The expression “British Isles” was “a complete misnomer and its use should be thoroughly discouraged”; it should be replaced “where necessary by Ireland and Great Britain.

We would discourage its usage

A more accurate (and politically acceptable) term today is the British-Irish Isles.

Can someone tell me why the so-called "controversy" should get so much emphasis when there's a whole article devoted to it? Surely it should be mentioned just once in this article? MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The article name stays for historical reasons. If somebody wants to make its content past tense & create a Britain and Ireland article with present tense content? be my guess. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, you seem to be answering a question different from the one being asked, or am I missing something? MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is there arguing on this article? Answer: Conflicting sources & suspicion of possible Political motivation from both sides. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking that. I'm asking why the "controversy" gets so much coverage in the article when there's a whole other article about it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My guess is, because this is the 'main article' in the BI dispute. The related articles are seen as side-articles (kinda like, pushing the argument aside). But anyways, you've a great point. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is plainly receiving "so much"- mar dhéa/yeah right- attention because this article is the title. It is nothing more. Everything in this article could be placed under one of numerous alternative modern names; Atlantic Archipelago, Britain and Ireland; Islands of Western Europe; IONA, etc. It is not under one of these titles simply because there is a pointedly political view being expressed by using the present title: the current title wholly represents a traditional British nationalist perception of Ireland's place. That is the entire point of this title, and Irish objections to it. This is basic, very basic. Asserting that Ireland is in this "British Isles" thing is an assertion that Ireland is British and that the Irish people are British. One does not need a PhD in Irish history or politics to understand why this particularly provocative claim is the source of consistent objection on this talk page from the very first discussion here some years ago (see Archives). Should you decide to lift your head from the sand you will see this. PS Anybody who refers to the independent Irish state as the "Irish Republic" is, quite frankly, so abjectly uninformed about Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that they should really disengage from this discussion without delay. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Irish, isn't it? And it's a republic, right? So what's wrong with "Irish Republic"? (Yeah, I know that name was used by some German-funded rebels in 1916 - so what?) "Irish Republic" is a hell of a lot better than "Republic of Ireland", not to mention "Ireland", both of which give the impression that the state represents the whole of Ireland, which it most assuredly does not. And "British Isles" has got nothing to do with British nationalism, since it was invented by the Ancient Greeks. ðarkun coll 01:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ho hum. No it wasn't. The Greeks called them "Pretannic Isles" or equivalents. The Irish objectors would have no problem with that name, since it's not associated with being called British. --HighKing (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pretanikoi nesoi, which translates into English as - guess what? - British Isles! ðarkun coll 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If this were a proper noun (ie BI) it would be capitalised. As it is nesoi is Greek for Islands (A piece of land completely surrounded by water OED c888). Isle (per OED c1290 Now more usually applied to an island of smaller size...As a common noun, island is the ordinary prose word). There is no such word as Pretanikoi. Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you any idea how ridiculous the above statement is? Ancient Greek wasn't "capitalised" at all - or rather, it was all written in capitals. The convention you refer to is a modern English one. "Isle" might well mean a small island in modern usage, but this has not always been the case, and simply goes to show that "British Isles" is an old term. As for there being no such word as Pretanikoi - it's right there, in the phrase Pretanikoi nesoi! ðarkun coll 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Right - where was this ever wriiten in ancient greek. The first usage I can find is by you - but then again why let the facts get in the way of a good wind up. Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And Britain is English, isn't it? So what's wrong with England? And the English monarch is the British head of state, right? So what's wrong with calling the whole island England? (Yeah, I know there are nominal Scots and Welsh left-so what?)....Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Call it what you like. Be prepared to be laughed at though - or worse. On the other hand, everyone can understand what "Irish Republic" means. After all, "Republic of Ireland" is a bit of a mouthfull, and "Ireland", as a name for the state, is not only wrong but also, I imagine, highly offensive to Irish Protestants in Ulster. ðarkun coll 11:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You imagine? Not very convincing. And when you say that everyone can understand what "Irish Republic" means, is that a case for just calling stuff whatever you want and to hell with being accurate and respectful. Hmmmm. --HighKing (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to MidnightBlue's question is in several parts. First, as long as there are people who believe that this is a "so called" controversy, the fact of the controversy is interesting and potentially new information for many readers of the page. Second, as soon as you create a sub-page of an article - particularly on a controversial topic - policy requires the main page to have a solid summary of the issue. Third, the topic is not getting "so much emphasis". The name of the archipelago is fundamental to an article on the archipelago. The most common name is controversial and other names are in use, apparently increasingly so. That fact is mentioned, and not even extensively mentioned, in the text. What MidnightBlue is listing is a mix of text in the article and text of the the references. The text in the article is certainly not excessive and the references are there because people (somewhat like MidnightBlue) keep coming and saying "this is nonsense, I never heard about this, this can't be true, prove it" and having selected text from the references helps prove it. Again, this is in line with policy. MidNightBlue is now essentially saying "my internal knowledge tells me that this isn't a real issue and therefore the fact that you can put lots of references to demonstrate that this is a real issue is something I don't like". Ehm, it's a real issue. The references prove it's a real issue. Try to believe it. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hugh Kearny uses "the Irish Republic" throughout his seminal British Isles: A History of Four Nations. It seems are we are only allowed to use (heavily use, and appropriate as non-opinion) his unreferenced "many Irish" line, and that we must see his active use of terms like 'British Isles' and 'Irish Republic' as "uninformed". --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

People if you want to create an article called Britain and Ireland, I will support that creation. If you want to gut the content out of this article & leave it with ...former term of Britain and Ireland...? fine. But, the article here remains as atleast a historical article. GoodDay (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Those articles were already created, and quickly redirected to here. There is, at any rate, little point in creating those articles while this article continues to lay claim that "British Isles" is the modern name of the Atlantic Archipelago. When this article becomes a historical one, then the move can be made. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - and I don't think that's going to be any time soon. Waggers (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, could we all agree to move this 'name dispute' to that 'British Isles naming dispute' page? GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Category: "British Isles" surnames

It seems that despite a well established article on Irish surnames on wikipedia, somebody (who happens to be a British loyalist) has set up a "British Isles surnames" category here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Isles_surnames- to claim our Irish surnames as "British". Wikipedia is a farce when these rabid irredentist types can impose their British identity upon Irish people by setting up such categories. What a pathetic, ultra arrogant and truly fanatical jingoistic cultural world they come from. They are establishing "British Isles" articles at a faster rate than ever, in line with the increasing retreat into europhobia and europscepticism in British society it would seem. The stronger the EU gets, the more insular and "British Isles" orientated these bootboys become. Will anybody in wikipedia shout stop? Dunlavin Green (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Dunlavin, I'm not trying to be contentious but a lot of Irish surnames- my own included- have been anglicised to a comparable English equivalent. What I'm saying is that whether you, or I, or anybody else likes it or not, Ireland does have cultural, and historical, and geographical ties to Britain that it does not share with any other nation. Ireland is the only nation in Europe, besides Great Britain of course, who speaks English as it's first language. The intermarriage between the Irish and The English has been going on for centuries.--jeanne (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)British Isles refers to the group of islands of which Ireland is a part. That doesn't make Irish surnames "British", it just means they originate from the same group of islands. Trolling posts like the one above help nobody. In any case, this is a matter for the task force, not the talk page for this article. Waggers (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me Waggers, but I AM NOT A TROLL !! I have merely stated a fact regarding the anglicisation of Irish surnames. I never said they BRITISH, if one can use that name without getting verbally decapitated!--jeanne (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to click on the (edit conflict) link above and find out what it means. I wasn't replying to you, but to Dunlavin Green. Waggers (talk) 07:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Really it's just another example of either a silly idea or a plainly disruptive tendency. Next we'll have "British Isles sports" (oh yes, Cricket is a British Isles sport, NOT) and "British Isles Politicians". Good luck keeping those pages under control. If the page is being set up in innocence then I suspect the poor creator is about to get their eyes opened. If it's being set up as part of the apparent ongoing disruption, it's downright unhelpful. Either way it'll be a dog fight. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that as a rule the "British Isles" categories aren't too useful - but I think surnames is an exception to that rule for th reasons Jeanne set out. Waggers (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, please accept my apology. I responded rather quickly and failed to notice the edit conflict link. Sorry, if I sounded rather testy. Cheers.--jeanne (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries, it's easily done. Waggers (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Still, this category is pretty much (i) meaningless and (ii) bound to be disruptive. I can't think of any names offhand that aren't definitely either English, Scottish, Irish, or something else. I can think of no real meaning to the phrase "it's a British Isles surname". 83.34.245.0 (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, the category isn't new, it was created in 2006 and has 377 items in it. I don't see why this is suddenly an issue now - it's just as "well established" as the Irish Names article that Dunlavin Green mentioned. Pure trolling. And there are several items in there (Beal for one) that could be of English or Celtic origin (since in this case there are places called Beal in England and Ireland). Waggers (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Waggers, I am one of the older 86. ips. Now, if you think you can dismiss these serious objections to "British Isles" being plastered everywhere as simply me "trolling" then you have another thing coming. "Pure trolling"- who the f@ck do you think you are? How convenient for where you are coming from if all objectors to this term could be dismissed in such flippant terms. I am deadly serious about my objections to this term being foisted upon my identity, my Irishness. It is absurd, politically motivated and, at its nicest, reflective of an older British power dynamic over Ireland. That dynamic hasn't many friends in Ireland. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"One of the older 86's now!" Funny - your trolled as 86.42.119.12 from the start, Goldheart. Survival does not give you authority (nor does a new user name), and you simply cannot stop your comments from brimming over with your obvious hate. To say "What a pathetic, ultra arrogant and truly fanatical jingoistic cultural world they come from." is trolling, pure and simple. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"It is absurd, politically motivated and, at its nicest, reflective of an older British power dynamic over Ireland." Whatever. It's the most common name and that's all that matters here. If that bothers you, read this. You've been around long enough to get yourself familiar with Wikipedia policy by now. Waggers (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Matthew, it seems that some things never change when it comes to you. You continue to be the most paranoid and OCD contributor to this talk page. When I didn't have an IP, you were whinging and sulking about it and making all sorts of pacts and covenants on User Talk Pages to boycott the "British Isles" article. It is telling that you never actually proved the above claim that 86.42.119.12 was/is another user. If you now have evidence to that effect, you should really present it rather than continuing to breach wikipedia AGF and numerous other policies. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've put a few comments down today as I've not commented in here for a little while. Other than that I am doing things with progress/results in mind. As for these "numerous other policies" I'm supposed to breach! I agree that it is AFG where I fail on occasion, but this is regarding you after all. The only intentions that resemble "pacts and covenants" (what strange wording!) I've made are to finish what I started, and always intended to see through. Nobody is 'boycotting' anything, you are just full of loose words.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, With all due respect implying that the Irish now have "British" names because our names have been anglicised betrays an astounding degree of misunderstanding of Irish names. It reminds me of the scene in Translations where young Owen is helping the English anglicise Irish placenames in the 1830s and old Manus turns around and asks 'What’s “incorrect” about the place-names we have here?’ Owen: ‘Nothing at all. They’re just going to be standardised’ to which Manus responds: ‘You mean changed into English.’ In other words, the English may present Irish names as one thing, but at its heart it is quite a different thing altogether. You are accepting the English representation as the Irish reality. Indeed, the English soldier in the play, Yolland, felicitiously conceded as much about his own place in the community: "Even if I did speak Irish, I’d always be considered an outsider here, wouldn’t I? I may learn the password but the language of the tribe will always elude me, won’t it?". Think about its relevance to how you personally understand Ireland and the Irish people. At a more practical level, the sort of misunderstanding you are advancing is one that claims 'Smith' in Ireland is an English name despite the well-attested to and indisputed fact that most "Smiths" in Ireland are the Gaelic-Irish Mac Gabhann sept with no ethnic connection to the British surname Smith. The same applies to very many other Irish surnames which articles like this seek to push under an ahistorical "British Isles" tent. Appearances are deeply deceptive, and these "British Isles" categories propagate the deception. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, You further say 'The intermarriage between the Irish and The English has been going on for centuries'- well, my paternal surname is Norman, like very many other Irish people. Not a single person on that side would claim to be "English" never mind this absurd recent invention called "Britishness" (although your equation of English with British was very, very revealing about the exclusive reality of Britishness). But to go back to my point, if my paternal surname is Norman, my maternal surname Gaelic, other common surnames Viking (e.g. Doyle) are also in my family, my question is: Why are these surnames not placed under a European surnames category? What is the agenda that seeks to box the Irish under one dimension of their historical experience, and ignore the rest? I'd love to know that. It must also be said that the sort of "Irish" you have been following are not exactly Conamara Gaeltacht or south Armagh Irish, are they? They seem to be people who have connections with English royalty and therefore this raises obvious questions of their own. Anyway, you are correct in saying "Ireland does have cultural, and historical, and geographical ties to Britain that it does not share with any other nation." It is also correct to say precisely the same thing about Ireland's relationship to every single country on earth. "Ireland is the only nation in Europe, besides Great Britain of course, who speaks English as it's first language."- to equate cultural similarities with the actual identity of a community is fundamentally flawed. Are we also American? Watching British TV, I would even venture to say that the British are actually American by your own logic? (ouch) You should reflect upon this particular point, because many people spend their lives missing the difference and go around offending an awful amount of decent and sincere people because of their ignorance. Dunlavin Green (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I never realised there were conditions attached to being Irish? You seem to imply that being from the Connemara Gaeltacht or South Armagh makes a person more Irish than lets say, someone from Mayo, Meath or indeed the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy. My surname is an old Munster name that was anglicised, but it also has a close link to Wales, being that Wales has a similar surname which was also anglicised. In fact, it's the 75th most common surname in Ireland. Most of the medieval English (ethnically Norman) nobility was descended from Dermot MacMurrough's daughter Aoife through her marriage to Strongbow. Surely you cannot think that Ireland shares the same close links to China, Mongolia or Mali as it does to Britain!!!! Most British people have Irish ancestry at this stage and vice-versa.--jeanne (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say that your "Irish" interest is strongly focused on links between people born in Ireland, or connected to Ireland, rather than on us, the people whose Irishness is not preceded by words like 'Anglo'. Your prism is therefore a very British colonial one, from which you then conclude the Irish are "British". So, until you examine us, it just makes you appear silly to examine the colonial community and claim we are all "British" because of that narrow examination. In particular, to say that most of the Norman nobility were descended from Aoife would make Aoife, God bless her, the greatest floozie in Irish and indeed world history. In fact, it is astonishingly ill-informed aside from lacking basic common sense. A quick perusal of Lodge's Peerage or the relevant NLI G.O. manuscripts is all that you need to free you from such silly ideas. Why bother? (I note you wisely avoided the substantive issues) Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

~~::::If any editors here? are frustrated & disgusted with Wikipedia, over it's usage & treatment of British Isles? Here some advice: leave. GoodDay (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)~~

I'm sure everyone has strong, deep and real feelings on the matter, but let's keep this Talk page for discussions on changes to the article based on consensus. Not what's right or wrong, or a count of references, or closely held beliefs. Consensus. And no more personal comments, please (if you're commenting about an editor and not the article, chances are it's a personal comment). --HighKing (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I'm just frustrated with this constant stalemate. Let's move this dispute to British Isles naming dispute or the related Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This is silly, as usual. The person and their name are different. You may well have a totally English person with an Irish name, or vice versa. A recent minister of the UK had a Spanish name. The name was no less Spanish than before. The man was English. No-one's name is a "British Isles name". 83.34.245.0 (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay is right, this is not the place to discuss this. Take it to the task force or the category talk page. If you really want something done about it, go to CfD. But please let's keep this talk page for talking about the British Isles article, and that alone. Waggers (talk) 08:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Could an admin collapse/hide this discussion? It was an aside and seems to be finished. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories are only useful when the category has a prescriptive relationship to the subject. Thus "Gaelic surnames" make sense. "Irish surnames" makes sense. "Scottish surnames" makes sense. "Welsh surnames" make sense. "English surnames" make sense. "European surnames" makes sense. But "British Isles" surnames makes NO sense. It mixes apples and oranges. The two are only related through a third party: the place that some call the British Isles. But there is no prescriptive relationship between "British Isles" and the many surnames from that place. It is an arbitrary categorization. --78.152.243.223 (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) (Adds: in common with the above poster, I would recommend that this discussion be moved to Category talk:British Isles surnames where I have proposed that the category be deleted. --78.152.243.223 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have commented on Category talk:British Isles surnames explaining why it should not be deleted, but that instead the name should be changed to Surnames of Great Britain and Ireland. Why should anyone object to that?--jeanne (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Restart on WP:BISLES

There's a need for guidelines on usage of the term British Isles on wikipedia. A taskforce has been set up and suggestions are being discussed at WP:BISLES. The spirit is discussion and compromise in order to prevent the widespread edit warring we have seen on these articles in the past. The intention is to adopt the guidelines and enforce them as an editing standard. Thanks to all who have contributed to date, especially to Matt for all his hard work, but let's finish the process that was started. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a need for guidelines. Do we have guidelines for the use of "Iberia" or "Scandinavia" or "America"? How do Canadians feel about living on the continent of North America when there's another country on the continent claiming to be the "United States" of America? Maybe there are guidelines and I haven't come across them, but if there are I bet they're not as severe in usage restriction as the proposals at WP:BISLES seem to be. As for HighKing, he won't even agree to stop imposing his own guidelines while new ones are being defined. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

And Iberia, Scandinavia and America are each of course the name of a modern country that the region in question is named after. The Portuguese, for example, live in the "Spanish" Peninsula and are happy with that name following centuries of Spanish occupation and colonialism in Portugal and the continuing Spanish occupation of the northeastern part of Portugal in 2008? Yes, your analogies are certainly intellectually sustainable-not. 86.44.3.209 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention Americans who live along the Gulf of Mexico. I just know they spend their time moaning and complaining about the name "Mexico", instead of worrying about the annual hurricanes that threaten their lives and property.--jeanne (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the French like the name of the 'English Channel' so much that they call it 'la Manche', and I'm not too keen on 'St George's Channel, I prefer to call it the Celtic Sea'. Please try not to prejudge and give WP:BISLES a chance. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And there is also plenty of reference to show that Canadians and Latin Americans do object to the way that the USA takes over the term "America" and "Americans". I don't know what Portugese think about "Iberia". I'm sure that these are also interesting topics. However, they're all still separate from the "British Isles". In the case of "British Isles" many Irish do object and many publications are recognizing that objection by changing how they refer to the islands. It might avoid some of the edit wars if some WP editors could show equal courtesy, but apparently courtesy is too much to expect. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention the Strait of Messina. The people of Calabria are preparing an armed revolt if the name is not changed-AT ONCE. After all, why should the strait between Sicily and Calabria, be called after a city in SICILY and not CALABRIA? Are Sicilians more important than the Calabrese? Shame on the geography books and world atlases.--jeanne (talk) 09:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you can find that serious academic historians and major international geographical publishers are changing their naming to reflect this dispute perhaps we should take it seriously. That's what's happening with "British Isles". 79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Atlantic Archipelago

Who redirected that page to here? If it's good enough for the internationally respected J.G.A. Pocock (and many other academics), it's good enough for anybody who is not trying to prove some political point by trying to suppress it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

We only need one article on the subject, and that article should use the most common name, which is British Isles. Waggers (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but then we need to treat all the alternative names on the main page in appropriate depth....which again is counter to - for instance - MidnightBlue's current drive. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No we don't. This article is not Terminology of the British Isles nor British Isles naming dispute. We don't need every alternative name listed in this article. Waggers (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If you blank redirect a term like "Atlantic Arcipelago", which isn't obviously the same as "British Isles" then it deserves an explanation in the article it's redirected to - otherwise it's a mysterious redirect. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Pockock and Norman Davies are the main two, both of whom are highly polemical writers. That is not to demean them, it's simply an unarguable fact. I wish you'd stop misusing Google like you do on this issue (you did this before as 86.42.119.12). Your Google search leads to "Portugal´s Atlantic archipelago" etc. Historians like Kearney say "British Isles is an Atlantic archipelagos", but still use the term British Isles - he is merely using the term "Atlantic" to describe it here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

If Pocock and Davies are unarguably polemical writers I'm sure you'll provide citation to support that...right? 83.34.245.0 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Before you continue.. Would you please create an account and sign-in? GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Not right now. If MattLewis has references it doesn't matter whether I'm an IP or a funny name like GoodDay. If he doesn't have references it also doesn't matter. Does he? 83.34.245.0 (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In the words of Groucho Marx, hello, I must be going. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't need references in here, do I? In any case - the doorstop polemic "The Isles" (the Norman Davies of 1999) is easy to get hold of - it's about as polemical a text as you can get. It's an odd read because of it, as it's a history too. It's a bit of a head spinner in many respects. Kearney does it better imo, although he gives us no text notes or sources at all (only what he backs up in the text), which is unconventional for a history book. Kearney is 'pro' the use of the term and the general 'Britannic' approach (though he agrees it is not ideal linguistically) and of the connections between British countries. Norman Davies (who in some ways extended upon Kearney and Pocock on a nationalistic level) is more critical of the connections. "The Isles" is not included in Kearney's biblography in the new edition of his 'British Isles: A History of Four nations' - the book that famously (on Wikipedia BI talk anyway) says "Almost invitably many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable, much as Basques or Catalans resent the use of the term Spain". Kearney's solution is to use 'British Isles' in 'inverted commas'.

These are the two main books - neither are great classics imo, but they are what we have. We also have Pocock's 'project' throughout the 70's and 80's (compiled in 2005 as "The Discovery of Islands, Essays in British History") - a collection of essays over time that are designed to change the status quo to an "archipelagic" approach. When it comes to 'approach' in a sense Davies is on the 'nation' side, and Kearney on the 'Britannic' side (with Pockock perhaps somewhere in the middle) - but all are about a significant change in approach, as none of them are 'anglocentric', as traditional historians like AJP Taylor were, often unashamedly so. They are all polemical and Pocock in particular met with huge criticism originally, while Davies and Kearney had mixed praise.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need references here; it's just that your suggestion that they are polemical is not at all supported by you writing two rambling paragraphs about how you think they're polemical. Your opinion isn't useful or relevant. Can you provide any support that they're polemical and that it's not just your opinion. Of course, even if you could, it's wouldn't change anything much. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I wrote all that, and you are that rude in reponse? My two paragraphs (assuming that you deem to believe the facts given in them) show you that they are polemical - and you bloody well asked me, you rude trolling IP!! If I told you that Davies's The Isles is called "a tract" on its cover would you ask me to "prove it"? If you want a Google ref, then don't be so lazy and bloody well go and look yourself! Davies and Pocock both Google with the word "polemic/al/ist", but if you have intelligence to understand Wikipedia in any depth at all, you should know that Googling alone does not prove anything, and it dosn't magically conjure up every cobined all-inclusive multi-purpose ref you need to explain something. With Davies it is easier but Pocock is seen as more moderate today, as I have said above - but in 1975 people like AJP Taylor where quite fiercely attacking him as he was so radical for the time.

I gave you something from my reading (and we supposed to communicate in here, not take the piss out of each other) and you have the gall to call it "rambling opinion" and say "your opinion isn't useful or relevant"! I have been assuming that you actually understand what the word 'polemical' means - but that is the kind of 'AGF' that sometimes just completely wastes my time - especially with loud mouthed IP's: a clear sign of the user either being banned, or having a weak character. The word 'Polemical' has nothing to do with being 'untrue', if that is what is idling in your head.--Matt Lewis (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not rude, just sceptical. I don't believe WP editors without evidence. You have a history of not providing any evidence so I am particularly sceptical in your case. It's nothing personal since you are equally anonymous as I. I just focus on verifiable reputable sources. Oh, I know what polemical means - which is why it might not change anything even if they were polemical. As for rude, you're the one at it with character attacks. I'm neither loud nor banned nor have I a weak character. In any case, none of these are relevant as long as the references exist that agree with what I say. You might be a quiet, unbanned saint but without references supporting your arguments it doesn't matter. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 09:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a history of not providing evidence? What on earth are you talking about? You, however, always have been, and always are, rude, and totally full of the proverbial. Calling me "equally anonymous" sounds to me like a crude judgement on my profile, which says that I use my real name. As for this magically abstract 'counter' evidence I am 'not' providing! For the Atlantic Archipelago? Are you nuts? You'll be ribbing me for not being able to disprove Atlantis next. You have twice tried to use Google to trick people into showing you have sources, and twice I've clearly demonstrated how your methods fall down. You may sneer at logical descriptions (like above), but how can I 'counter ref' a misrepresented Google search? I can only describe where you are being inaccurate.

Your own 'one glove fits all' clutch of hand-selected evidence regarding the general intensity of the dispute fail WP:REDFLAG in the Verify policy when you present them like you want to (ie as common fact) - so your main proof has to be to demand direct 'counter references' to cancel you out (or else). This is the weakest form of proof you can have. It is impossible to find 'counter' refs for a small group of cherry-picked parties, especially when focusing on specific weasel words like "many" - you should logically have many refs, but you simply don't.

And why would the public positively welcome a perfunctory term like "British Isles"? (ie. if 'welcoming' was the necessary counter to 'objectionable' and 'offensive') It's an absurd notion! If you actually had enough quality refs to call them "fact", I probably would be able to find a "counter ref" or two (as it would a genuinely public matter - and anything can be found when it’s a public matter) - but I wouldn't need them, as you actually having substantive refs in this scenario would suffice, and there would be no argument from anyone. But it's just not a public matter at all, is it? But we can still show all the problems with the term. Put your Patrick Duffy posing pouch in the bin, people need to deal with this article seriously.

As for weakness of character: you are banned, and you currently have an IP and a sock account on the go simultaneously - and yet still you still have no cogent argument, momentum or gravitas. How weak is that? --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"Patrick Duffy posing pouch"??? Wow, when you're in the flow....:-) Man from Atlantis anyone? --HighKing (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) First, I'm neither banned nor a sock so you can keep that idea to yourself. Second, you keep saying that things are obviously true but never providing any references to support you. It's really tiresome. Third, there are lots of references from sources like Cambridge, Oxford, Routledge, etc., that the term is offensive, objectionable, etc., to many Irish people. You keep saying that they're exaggerating, but you never provide any evidence. So, your assertion is quite simply not to be believed. 83.34.245.0 (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What 'things', what 'assertion' - it's all waffle. Over time, there has been gathered together references that mention dissent from a Cambridge, an Oxford, a Routledge and a Macmillan too - so what? These publishers are not testaments in a bible, and we are supposed to discuss what the authors actually say, and how to use them properly. When I try and do that I get shouted down by the editors who don't want to argue this - and simply want to bully their statements through. You get all kind of writings published by these publishers. Are people with opposing views both presenting unquestionable "fact" when both of them are published by Oxford? should disabled people be terminated before birth etc etc? Writers like Churchill, AJP Taylor - his Anglocentric view of British history - so many wtiters can be and should be criticised rather than accepted verbatim because they have acadmic publishers. I'm not comparing these on a direct ethical basis - I'm just trying to explain to you that 1 Oxford text does not = 10 non-Oxford texts, so harping on about having an 'Oxford' (to cover the lack of more commonplace refs) is meaningless.

It's all about how we weigh and present the information - there are a number of ways to present information based on its 'qualities', but you are demanding the simplistic equation of 'a reliable publisher = a reliable source'. This is based on a mere handful of refs with their own (often polemical) context, don't always verify themselves: there are mostly selection of texts that treat history in a particular way, and must be balanced against the widespread use of the term, and the fact that they are not backed up by the media or many other texts - they are still relatively niche. So we explain that they are opinions, and refrain from 'picking out' favourable sentences and presenting them as unquestionable fact!

From Policy: (WP:REDFLAG and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Going by the above, we clearly need to name the prominent adherents of the view - and not transform selected words by them into common fact. The situation regarding the term should speak for itself - we only need to relate why it is an uncomfortable term, not suggest it causes offense because of the henious 'British past' - which is constantly bubbling under this article like a foul smelling swamp. Not real life - just this article.

The word "many", when presented alone as fact, and without any balance, is intensified a hundred fold. In Kearney's 'Cambridge Press' book (a "Britannic" perspective called British Isles) his unreferenced "many Irish" has none of the grave anti-British weight that we provided it at all, as it balanced by the (essential) positivity of his interconnected Britannic approach to BI history. Who are we to abuse the context of his approach? Kearney doesn't offer notes and sources, as this is his history - his contribution, his book. We need to put his name by it.

We have no real-life evidence to support any public dissent, but we have abundant evidence of its widespread uncontested continued use. The Folens 'classroom altlas' example of it being a possible future cause of contention is a mixed and extremely important example, as it shows that a precautionary decision was taken where actual complaints were lacking. National Geographic has put up a disclaimer, and has started to mix its BI and B&I terminology. The cartography is important as it is pretty much the only evidence we have of people making decisions about the term. The Irish embassy spokesman was one single (and rather awkward) line since 1947 - and thus needs to be a quote, rather than a declaration of Irish policy (ie. the explicit yet nebulous "the Irish government discourages its use" must be re-written too).

In this situation where real-life evidence of emotional feeling either way is lacking for the use of a commonly-used term, we must assume at least a 'neutral acceptance' over a 'negative acceptance'. We have no right to make so many negative assumptions. As for counter-references, nobody is going to write about how the Irish 'don't particularly care' about a term which isn't even a public issue. Why would they? However you repeat things, you cannot hide from the fact that it is simply not a public issue - partly because the term is an 'occasional' one, and not an everyday one. Regarding Irish people's propensity to view the word 'British' in a negative light - we have no right to use the word "many irish" for that either. There are rules on Wikiepdia for dealing with race and culture too. Kearney would balk if he read our introduction as it stood, and he would merely tut if he read it as it stands (Wikipedia not having the greatest respect in the academic world - and I wonder why?). But enough of this pat, the tables you say are irrelevant are currently being built. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, more long-winded waffle. The /References page includes plenty of references from Irish newspapers which are perfectly sufficient to indicate widespread public dissent, and these are in addition to the multiple scholarly references that MattLewis is struggling so hard to dismiss. As for all the guff on policy, again MattLewis asserts that the fact that "British Isles" is offensive to many Irish people is somehow an exceptional claim. References support it as a verifiable fact and - for the umpteenth time - MattLewis's brings no references in support of his extraordinarily unsupported opposing view. 88.23.15.173 (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, you are still in denial about Irish resistance to this term. The extensive citations here supporting those objections mean that you are also flying in the face of numerous wikipedia policies by your ongoing campaign. Please snap out of it. We are showing exemplary patience with you. It's OK, like the Phoenix, the British Empire shall rise again, just not in the next thousand years. And sure, then, it will all be in Chinese. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As for "polemical", your superlong rants and astonishing waffle contending that "British Isles" is a normal apolitical innocuous term make you the queen of polemics. It's a terrible and tragic waste of youth to be spending one's time at this rubbish. There are regrets on the horizon.Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I make these long responses as you go around misrepresenting my moderate stance - in other words I am provoked into doing it. If you do it again I'll file a WikiAlert - not on your incivility or clear cultural bigotry (though that wouldn't be hard to do), but simply on your libelous attacks on my approach. You just cannot go around lying about another user's position. I have never called the term "innocuous" - I am criticising exaggerated approaches to the term. I just want the issues over the term dealt with fairly, not whittled down to a controlled and simplified attack on 'the British'. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce) Go ahead with your WikiAlerts. I haven't said anything incivil or anything bigoted. Your approach is not moderate and your own words convict you since the article makes no attack on the British. It says that the term "British Isles" is objectionable to many Irish people. That's fully supported by reference. What's more, so is the fact that many Irish find the term offensive. That's not anti British, it's simply true. Yet you keep opposing this - apparently on political grounds. Your long and referenceless responses simply confirm that your arguments are all POV and entirely unverifiable. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

We have finally, after about 8 months, removed the additional "or offensive" (thanks to an admin making an edit) - but you still won't accept any weight. All my proposals (which detail cartography and such matters) get curtly dismissed - simply because they try to describe what exactly might be objected too, rather than boldly state that "many object" (which, given the general weight over the 4 articles, insinuates it is over a political 'British' hegemony/anger over historical events - rather than merely the anachronistic nature of the word 'British', which does have a counter 'Britannic' argument). In such isolation the word "many" is intensified a hundred fold.--Matt Lewis (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The admin removed a word that they should not have removed. It will eventually go back in.

(A) "...the British Isles (a term which is itself offensive to Irish Nationalists)" from Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. John E. Joseph, published by Macmillan.

(B) "The British Isles does include the island of Ireland although the adjective British used in this context is often found offensive by Irish Nationalists.....it is as simple to refer to Britain and Ireland or to recognize that the term 'British Isles' was in widely accepted and common usage during the period covered by this chapter.", from What is a Nation?: Europe 1789-1914 By Timothy Baycroft, Mark Hewitson, published by Oxford.

(C) "Geographical terms also cause problems and we know that some will find certain of our terms offensive. Many Irish object to the term the 'British Isles'", from The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland: Power, Conflict and emancipation. Joseph Ruane and Jennifer Todd. Cambridge University Press. 1996. ISBN:052156879X.

(D) "In an attempt to coin a term that avoided the 'British Isles' - a term often offensive to Irish sensibilities - Pocock suggested a neutral geographical term for the collection of islands located off the northwest coast of continental Europe which included Britain and Ireland: the Atlantic archipelago", from Lambert, Peter; Phillipp Schofield (2004). Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. New York: Routledge, p. 217.

(E) I could also add all the references that describe the term as things like "unsayable", and again reference the data that the great majority of people in Ireland (or at least ROI) describe themselves as nationalists and you, and others I could mention, would try to claim that it's all an anti-British conspiracy. Yeah, and Kennedy and Elvis are living together in Area 51, but I can't find reference to support that either. The fact that the term is offensive to many Irish is supported by reference. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

All of those are usable, yes - but none of them make it true (and are full of qualifiers like 'Nationalists' and 'sensibilities' and have their own contexts and life too). By ignoring my concerns of weight and presentation you are showing yourself to be quite an extremist. Wikipeedia says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" - we call this a viewpoint held by hisorians of the field such as Pocock and Davies. WE DO NOT STATE THAT "MANY IRISH FIND IT OFFENSIVE" AS THE UNQUESTIONABLE TRUTH. --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Matthew, you alone feel a need to explain why the term "British Isles" covering Ireland is offensive (or "objected to" as you euphemistically word it). If France were included in wikipedia as part of Germany, would you feel the same need to explain French objections? The objections would be self-evident. The fact is that it is your Britishness which just cannot take this Irish rejection of British imperialism which is your real problem here: nothing more. Add to that French-German analogy centuries of British occupation, dispossession and cultural, economic and political rape and you are arriving at some understanding of Irish objections/offense at this term. You are, at every turn, merely attempting to understate the offensiveness of this term. "British Isles" is offensive because, One: We, the Irish, are not now, never have been and never shall be "British"; Two: the British are the people who have persecuted the Irish for centuries and imposed a privileged settler-colonial and sectarian caste upon the native Irish since, at least, 1603. This is basic Irish history and thus the offence Irish people feel at being labeled part of your "British Isles" needs as much explanation as explaining why a rape victim objects to being named after the rapist. I hope this is, finally, clear to your patriotically British self.Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The term predates the British state by some two millennia. But in any case, the term is used, and is an integral part of the language. Wikipedia is not the place to try and change this fact. ðarkun coll 23:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No it does not, as a quick read of the article testifies to "British Isles" only appears in the English language at the very earliest in the late 16th century. Moreover, the fact that the British state existed in a radically different form, as a brutal colonial occupier that dispossessed the native Irish and imposed a Cromwellian herrenvolk upon them (i.e. my people) in the 17th century to what Britishness meant in the 5th century makes a mockery of your claim. By your logic, the Swastika is still simply a Hindu symbol of peace and love. Language changes. There is no point in denying it (except to continue a British nationalist myth). Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The term is Ancient Greek, then Latin. It's appearance in English coincides with its appearance in other European languages. As for Cromwell, perhaps you are unaware that in 1660, on the Restoration of the monarchy, his body was dug up and his head stuck on a pole. The English hate him as much as you do, and to blame the English for anything he did is therefore unfair and racist. And to the Hindus, and also the Jains, the swastika is indeed still a symbol of peace and love. Please try and get your facts straight before posting again. ðarkun coll 23:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not: "British Isles" has an early modern English etymology(clearly). And save us these juvenile "the English hate Cromwell as much as the Irish" or baby infants lessons on what happened his body during the Restoration; Ireland was conquered by the British. You can dress this up in some repulsively teleological British framework of "didn't we all suffer" but at the end of the day Irish civilisation was overthrown and a British one was imposed upon us. Our land was stolen by you people and we were shoved up to the bad land and forbidden from owning the land of Ireland for centuries. Our religion was outlawed, our language banished, our legal system banished, our secular leadership exiled, and for centuries we were portrayed as ape-like by the British. So cut your patronising sophistic analogies, unless you want to find a parallel with all that in British society. And don't mention that minor British genocide in the 19th century. Oh, and how smart of you to note that the Hindus view the swastika differently: that was sort of the purpose of the word "simply" in the sentence. So please try and get both your facts straight and your understanding of the Queen's English (which I perfectly understand because every time my forefathers spoke Irish in the 19th century schools they were beaten black and blue by representatives of your great British civilisation which apparently was a continuation of one from 2000 years before. Christ- and the Brits call the Irish "thick"? Jesus wept.). Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only thing I can be bothered to take issue with is your characterisation of Irish society as a "civilisation". The rest is just vitriol, I'm afraid, and doesn't merit a response. ðarkun coll 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering you are without a shadow of a doubt infinitely less educated about Ireland's British problem than I was as a ten-year-old, I congratulate you on finally being honest about it (although graceless as ever, of course). In fact, I am absolutely certain that my knowledge of British society, particularly in the early modern period, is immeasurably deeper than your own.Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it, considering some of the tripe you've been coming out with. ðarkun coll 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought Ireland was conquered by England? When ya say British, you're including Scotland (as an Irish conquerer). GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What is Britain but just an English invention to make the (lowland) Scots feel more comfortable when they were conquered by, and died for...England? Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an island. Look it up. ðarkun coll 00:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good, Thark. Keep this up and we'll have no choice but to give you a star and a lollipop for student of the week.Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ridicule and ad hominem attack tends to be the last resort of those who have lost an argument. ðarkun coll 01:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The Protestants in Northern Ireland are mostly of Scottish descent. ðarkun coll 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooooh, my aching head. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring TharkunColl and Dunlavin for a moment, MattLewis again incorrectly - and without a shred of evidence - suggests that the fact that "British Isles" is offensive to many people in Ireland is somehow an odd minority view. It's fully supported by 100% reputable sources that it's offensive to many people in Ireland and MattLewis again has failed to provide ANY evidence that it's a minority view. It's not up to us to care why it's offensive or whether or not it ought to be offensive. It is. The article needs to say so. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just dipping into Wikipedia right now, but I promise you I'll file that WIkialert tonight - prompted here by your simple word "odd" - compounded, needless to say, by scores of other provocative exaggerations and misrepresentations by you, both large and small, of my stance. I'm just tired of you now - genuinely tired. The kind of tiredness that involves an element of work - yes? I'm probably foolish to have been as patient with you as I have - you have provoked me relentlessly without a break, even as your 79.155 IP.

You do not allow me to say anything without twisting it, and sometimes even castigating it, straight afterwards (although castigating is not as bad an offense as the misrepresenting - and it is you dishonesty that has worn me down more than your tone). Thinking of you doing it to a less durable person than myself is actually quite unpleasant - try and think of 'British' people as flesh and blood, why don't you? You are treating another human being in quite a torturing way - you need to be shown in no uncertain terms that you must grow out kind of thing. Quite simply - there are arguments, and there is abuse. Prepare your defence now, so we can get it over with. I'm not going to carry on re-stating my stance from your routine misrepresentations forever. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Go right ahead. I don't misrepresent what you say. I just want the article to reflect the sources and you don't like what the sources say. That's it. The sources are there for "offensive" and "many" and "often" and you want to turn this into something political. I've never made any remarks about British people. Why would I? They're not particularly relevant to the issue at hand. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thark, not all Northern Irish Protestants are of Scottish origin. Many are Northern English (as can be attested by the diffusion of surnames such as Thompson, Wilson, Dixon, etc. Also there were many Irish who intermarried with the settlers, as as such many Protestants have Irish blood, and let's not forget the Huguenots from France who set up the linen mills. James Molyneaux is a descendant of the Huguenots in the paternal line.--jeanne (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion should be at talk:British Isles naming dispute, IMO. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruthie Dalriada/Pict Section Needed

Although far be it from me to complicate the issues related to nineteenth century romantic nationalism and the political heirs of pseudo-Celtic mythology in shaping the British Isles debate, there really should be some reference to the Cruthie-Dalriada (also the Picts) that inhabited Ulster, western Scotland and possibly the Isle of Man, for whom the British Isles were a fundamental reality as they needed to transport their pigs, cattle and sheep by boat for grazing and forage depending upon the severity of seasonal weather or crop failures. I am a novice Celtic scholar, however, and while a section by a knowledgeable contributor would be useful, one must be careful as many 'Cruthies' are too compromised by Loyalist sympathies for academic objectity. Best, MacBiggles ----

Speaking about the Cruithne in any meaningful sense is pointless after Ian Adamson and his followers have turned them into, well, British Loyalists. The only people into the Cruithne are the Independence for the Six Counties brigade, and the pseudo intellectual theories of Adamson- all of which is a pathetic example of what the theorists of the conflict call the mimetic relationship between the communities: they are looking for their Cú Chulainn (just as they are trying to claim, in opposition to Irish that Ulster Scots is a language]]. The Cruithne had as much of a "British Isles" identity as the average Irish person has today. Oh, and what you are alluding to is transhumance, not shoving the cattle from Ireland to Scotland or vica versa on a seasonal basis...2000 years ago. Dunlavin Green (talk) 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that -- transhumance is a new one for me -- but I didn't know the pedigree of the Loyalist influence. There was, however, some sort of major ecological disaster around the sixth century AD that distorted established grazing and forage patterns worldwide and might be worth considering further, especially on the Argyll peninsula and the Isle of Man. (Similar questions have arisen in efforts to explain the rapid upsurge of warfare in Mexico that produced the Aztecs and Toltecs). I await future contributions with interest. MacB ----

I'm puzzled. Are we talking about the historical (or semi historical, at least) Cruithne or about some modern organization? 79.155.154.185 (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out Ian Adamson. Adamson was a unionist/loyalist politician who has in the past 20 years been at the forefront of claiming that the current British unionist settler population has a right to live separately in Ireland because they are, he contends, descended from the Cruithne. His ideas were very important to the UDA during The Troubles. Here's one book discussing the connection. User:Setanta747 is a big fan. Dunlavin Green (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Careful with the 'settler' epithet; at least a third of the protestant population of Ulster have no 'settler' provenance, hence the now archaic Sinn Fein (and usually Anglo-Irish) 'souptakers' jibe (pursuit of material improvement through protestant conversion --'taking the soup') although Gaelic-medium protestant services attracted many. Names such as Mackie, MacKay, MacQuaid Macquarrie and sephs are indicative although often indistinguishable from Argyll pensinsula spellings, and 'Collins', 'Butler' and 'White' were adopted by newly-literate protestants for ease of spelling, apparently. All rather obscured by the mists of time, really. MacB----

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:British Isles/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of October 16, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

The article is not stable, with charges of OR and POV being flung around on the talk page. Stability is required by criterion 5 of the good article criteria.

There are three dead links and one link to a blacklisted site.[4]

There has been a request for citation in the Transport section since June 2007, another in Political co-operation within the islands since April 2008.

Several significant section are completely or almost completely without inline citations, notably Languages, Culture and Demography.

The sources used are still missing isbns, despite that having been tagged as necessary.

Given that the article's instability has resulted in its protection, it is clearly not possible for these issues to be addressed in the short term, even if that would otherwise have been possible.

--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the disputing on this article? it'll be a long time before anything is settled. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)