Talk:British Isles/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

British Empire

Why is it relevant that Dee coined the term British Empire? He coined lots of words. And let it be remembered that the English of Dee's time never called themselves British - that term meant what we today call Celtic. So Dee's use of British in these contexts must be regarded as an attempt to be inclusive, and most certainly not an English expansionist policy. He was himself of Welsh ancestry. ðarkuncoll 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting fact, and it should be there because of that. Why would you object? PurpleA (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dee coined the term while advocating Pletho's Reform of the Pelopponese as a model - he was not talking about the weather or mountains. There is a view that, to quote Tharky, "British Isles" is a neutral term with no political significance, and it is only misguided Irish nationalists who have imbued it with such. Well it was imbued with political significance from day one. Lucian Sunday (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Day one" being when Pytheas visited the British Isles perhaps? What possible political motivation could the Greeks have had? Remember that Dee was a geographer, and he was merely translating into English a term that had been revived by European map makers since the 1490s. ðarkuncoll 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Day one" being when the Phoenicians visited the British Isles perhaps? What possible political motivation could they have had? We have no records from either them or Pytheas. Presumably you have not conjured up your claim that Dee was merely a translator; I am quite happy to investigate any references that supports your claim. Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The British Impire is not the subject of this article, so doesn't belong in the lead here. I've removed it. The same sentence already includes that Dee was an imperialist. --hippo43 (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not relevant to add that Dee was an advocate if imperial expansion. It seems Dee's enthusiasm for imperial expansion was in the context of strengthening sea-power & claiming the lands of the new world, to add the comment that he was an advocate of imperial expansion implies that his use of the term "British Isles" was in itself imperialist - unless there is evidence to support this then to include this is expressing a point of view about the term which is not substantiated. It seems making corrections of things on here that are clearly wrong is seen as vandalism, perhaps we're all obliged to have the same point of view, no matter that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia & not a political platform, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the political origins and uses of this term into the present day it is completely relevant to note, as the British historian who wrote the DNB entry on John Dee notes, the fact that Dee was an advocate of imperial expansion. In fulfillment of wikipedia's policy this is referenced in the article so resistance to recording this fact seems rather to be a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it than ensuring NPOV. Why would somebody want to suppress this knowledge? 213.202.138.52 (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be knowledge but it isn't relevant here. And please stop removing content at Military history of the peoples of the British Isles just because you don't agree with the idea of the British Isles. Mister Flash (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely the point, User:Mister Flash: the "British Isles" is an idea. Moreover, it is an idea foisted upon Irish people by British people of a peculiarly separatist (from Europe) bent, a throwback to the days of empire when they got away with that sort of thing. The distribution of power in Europe has changed dramatically - nay, fundamentally - since those days, and this term now sticks out like a sore thumb, a relic of a former European power in its heyday. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to a lot of opininated & unsubstantiated comments being posted here, which is exactly my query as regards the highlighting of Dee as an advocate of imperial expansion, he was but in the context of the claiming of lands in the new world - is there any evidence that it is relevant in regard to his use of the term "British Isles"? As far as I can see the purpose in making this comment is to retrospectively attribute a political motivation to Dees use of this term that just doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. If there is any evidence then that would be enormously important, but as none has been cited I presume none has been found, to date. As for the British Isles being an "idea", surely it's just a name for a group of islands, there's no point in arguing against it as the group of islands exists, so does the name. The only alternative would be to popularise a different name for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

As I showed here a few months ago, Ireland was most definitely seen as part of the "new world" by British colonialists in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. More research has been done on this aspect of early modern Irish history than perhaps any other area (especially the analogies between English treatment of the native Irish and the native Americans). In particular this "new world" has been extensively substantiated in the works of Nicholas Canny and D.B. Quinn. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree that you showed any such thing, merely seemed to quote a reference to a new world, which it would be for anybody choosing to uproot & start a new life somewhere different, rather than the new world. Ireland could not have been seen as the new world in that era as it wasn't new, seeing as there are records going back hundreds of years indicating that people knew it was there. Furthermore, the piece on Dee in ODNB clearly shows the new world he is wishing to see claimed is a little further west. I presume when you claim it was seen as part of the new world you're not seriously claiming that rather being seen as part of the British Isles, Ireland (the island, that is) should instead be seen as part of America (as in "the Americas") - or was that just analagous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of the peoples of the British Isles

There's an article with the above title that I've listed for a name change. I believe it's a very good example of the kind of article that misuses the term British Isles, and other editors believe it is a very good article for using the term. I believe more editors are needed to reach a decision. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Was the argument over there not going your way then? This is almost a case of canvassing. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you fail to understand what canvassing means. The notice is correctly being posted on a general related talk page not on individuals's talk page. Please don't attack other editors, HighKing was quite correct in his actions here.MITH 22:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well why didn't he do it to start off with then? By the way, I said "almost canvassing". I know what constitutes canvassing at Wikipedia and while this does not precisely fit the mould it comes pretty close (but it wasn't needed anyway). I see you've picked up on HighKing's favoured response of "not attacking the editor" while leaving him - or you - free to do so. Note his comment over at Talk: MH of the peoples of the BI where he questions the planetary origins of one of the contributors. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I listed it at WP:RM originally, as per policy. It failed to attract a sufficient number of users, so I listed it here also. It would be great if we could stop the name-calling and look at things objectively. It's really trying and tiring to keep running into the same old arguments of assigning political motivations, calling each other names, etc. The fundamental question that we are trying to address is whether or not it is appropriate to have an article which discusses military history of a geographical region, especially given the debates and discussions we have had to date. --HighKing (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Must admit I fail to see the point of the article. Never mind a name change, I would be inclined to split it into two, Military history of the United Kingdom and Military history of Ireland and merge each with the appropriate articles. There may be a bit of overlap, but then there will be ovelap between Military history of the United Kingdom and Military history of France as well. So what? The next thing we'll have Military history of the peoples of Scandinavia, Military history of the peoples of the Benelux countries, Military history of the peoples of the Baltic States and so on. It smacks a bit of creating articles just for the sake of creating them. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected the article, to prevent further edit warring. Looking back through the history, there isn't any obvious consensus-supported pre-edit-war version to revert to, so I am not going to revert the last revert, since that could be seen as taking a position in this content dispute. No WP:TROUT please, I am quite sure that I am acting within WP:Protection policy here.

Please take this oportunity to discuss the merits of including/excluding this disputed phrase. Recommended topics of conversation include: is that description in the cited source? If so, does the source portray it as important? If not, is there another source that does? Could this text be included in the body of the article rather than the lead? And so on. For non-recommended topics and styles of discussion, see above :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole 3rd paragraph has problems i think, there was talk awhile ago about merging those two paragraphs but it never progressed. The mention of Dee being an imperialist wasnt needed, but i think we should look at the whole paragraph not just that one sentence.

As for the page protection, i dont think its really needed at this stage. An IP made a valid edit, several editors have complained about that sentence. It was removed by HighKing as "vandalism" and he issued a warning on the IPs talk page, something i think was unfair and wrong. So i undid it, clearly saying he should undo it properly if he doesnt like something. The IP only made one further change, because he thought i agreed with his edit and then stopped. I dont think page protection is needed right now. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, five reverts in 40 minutes, with no other edits and no real discussion, looks to me like protection is necessary. If the editors involved can reach a consensus here about that sentence - or indeed the paragraph - any admin can unprotect the page with my blessing. Otherwise, I'd rather leave it a while. You can still use {{editprotected}} for any proposed edits that have consensus. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Readers may care to note that there are two IPs here - me and the other Virgin ISP editor. I know nothing of the other guy. Maybe he could confirm this by putting a remark here with his IP address, as opposed to mine. 82.3.65.106 (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It would help greatly, if you & the other IP, would create accounts & then sign-in. GoodDay (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Im glad SheffieldSteel decided to keep the article protected, you prevented an edit war by Sarah by the sounds of it as she wanted to vandalise the introduction again. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the introduction

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. " This needs to be changed. Obviously anyone typing in "British isles" and gets redirected here is being grossly mislead. We need to say "The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe. Despite the name the islands are not British." Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make this very necessary change but it appears the article is now protected. Why? Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see why. BritishWatcher was edit warring again. Sarah777 (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, as it does to tango. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this Sarah because I'm pretty much in the same boat as you regarding most things. The matter of fact is you're not doing Irish editors any favours with all of these silly proposals of yours.

If you want to be productive about it then suggest something more encyclopedic like changing the intro slightly to something like this:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the unwanted association of the term "British" with Ireland. The government of Ireland also discourages its use. "Britain and Ireland" is a frequently used alternative name for the group.

Something like that would actually have a chance of getting consensus if you really wanted to highlight how Ireland is not British rather than playing games.MITH 22:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd support that. As for "doing Irish editors no favours" that is moot. The British POV majority are not open to reasoned argument. My proposals are a lot less "silly" than the defence of British POV we see here over a range of articles; where black becomes white depending on the specific article. If you have a problem with a specific proposal I make then please state exactly what it is. Don't characterise it; especially don't call my proposals silly. That annoys me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If a "POV" is in the natural populist majority for a highly acclaimed film you don't like (say, if it was Titanic, or Star Wars), are you going to picket it on the streets, ranting and raving about conspiracy theories in the film industry? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

>>> I'd support that also but the larger issue, for me, is that the British Isles is only 'a term for a group of islands'. There are many other well-known terms; from the first sentence this article gives the impression that British Isles is the only name. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for that, but you could propose something that people with "British POV" are more likely to accept. People have POVs - it's natural. However, saying that people of a certain POV they can't have a reasonable debate is wrong. Sure you're going to get 1 or 2 who won't back down on their opinion no matter what, but if you make a good structured point the vast majority of people will listen.MITH 23:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There's already more than enough mention of how some Irish people don't like "British Isles". We don't need to expand the point any more. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus isn't that there's more than enough. If that was the case some would be removed. Of course it can be expanded on - the suggestion could gains consensus. The point here is raising the point 'why' the objection exists and its done by only adding on ten words.MITH 22:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, consensus on anything here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

And why is that you believe that to be the case?MITH 23:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been a bit slow to catch on this evening. I really must stop feeding the trolls. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls? There is no consensus; there is rampant imposition of British POV. We need to highlight the fact that the so-called (by Wiki) "British Isles" are not British isles. That is a simple matter of fact. Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought "the fact that the so-called (by Wiki) "British Isles" are not British isles" was made perfectly clear by the second sentence of the lead, which states that "there are two sovereign states located on the islands". When you labour a point too much it just looks like pretty amateur propaganda and has the opposite effect to what you desire. It makes people think they're being preached at, and alienates them. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I should say that is pretty irrelevant to the argument. Either the point stands, or it doesn't. Attacking an editor for raising it is Appeal to Ridicule, and falls within fallacious argument. purple (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Who's attacking an editor for raising it? I certainly wasn't. I was arguing against the proposal and gave my reasons. Perhaps purple your comment might have been better directed at someone else. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Best to address the argument, and not the editor, or it might be seen as ad hominem. You did go outside the issue. purple (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No I did not. I said that if you make the point too many times in the article it comes over as propaganda. I was commenting on the style of the article, not making a comment on Sarah777's history on this discussion page. If you think that Sarah is labouring a point too much that is your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, she is entitled to seek as many changes as she wishes. It's a shame more people involved in this discussion page don't comment on the article, rather than throwing accusations at each other and name calling. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly encountered people saying things like "well, Ireland is British in a geographical sense". So the two sovereign states idea does not, evidently, make it perfectly clear that Ireland is not British. I like MITH's suggestion. Nuclare (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason given by Sarah for a change is pathetic, however i dont have a problem with the wording suggested by MITH on the condition we address the 3rd paragraph. There is no reason to expand the second section to say they dont like it because of an unwanted association with "British" when in the third paragraph we say.. "Since Irish independence, the term British Isles is deprecated by some speakers, while others regard it purely as a geographical rather than political description". An attempt should be made to merge these two paragraphs as was suggested some time ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope everyone realises how pathetic this whole debate is to the outside world. I came across this accidentally while Googling... [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Things are usually "pathetic" and "non-issues" to the people who have a vested interest in denying/avoiding the issues in question. Such is life. Dunlavin Green (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

lol @ the Winston Churchill bit on that forum. Dunlavin i dont know who you think is trying to ignore issues or denying them.. this article goes out of its way to explain that British isles is controversial and hated by some Irish people. Whilst i support a rewording of the second and third paragraph, the reasons given by sarah for a change were pathetic. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess the contributors to that webpage are also contributors to this, and other, pages. LevenBoy (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering is there consensus for my proposed change? I don't see any editors who had any particular problem with it directly. If there is consensus I'll ask an admin to put it on the article page.MITH 17:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think not at this stage, but maybe you could address the point made by BritishWatcher to see if the paragraphs can be merged so that there's just a single one dealing with objections. Further, I'm not happy with "unwanted". It's unwanted by "some", but we are into weasel phrases again. LevenBoy (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats fair enough how about:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland. While the government of Ireland discourages its use, others regard it purely as a geographical rather than political description. The first English use of the term Brytish Iles was in 1577 by John Dee, however in modern times alternative names for the group have emerged such as "Britain and Ireland".

It's not perfect but I'd be interested to hear what people think.MITH 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, not bad. How about "have emerged...." rather than "used frequently...." ? LevenBoy (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be more concise alright. I've changed the proposed text to match your suggestion.MITH 19:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't "others regard it" equally as weaselly? Others? Which "others"? (Most of the English-speaking world) And, does anyone have any references that verify it is in fact used by anyone to mean that the Irish state is or should be British? If not, the correct/verifiable way of phrasing it is that it is a geographical term but one which the Irish government, and whoever else, wishes is not used, and which publishers X,Y and Z have followed suit in removing from their publications. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It is not, and never was, merely a "geographical" term, as a quick peruse of John Dee's autobiography confirms. Indeed, there is dispute about what areas are included in the BI in "geographical" terms. In contrast, there is no dispute that Britain has ruled Ireland for centuries and this rule was greatly to the disadvantage of the native Irish in political, linguistic, cultural, religious and economic terms. Saying Ireland, and thus the Irish, are "British" given this context of overt British political claims over Ireland makes "British Isles" an extraordinarily political term. This should be obvious. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

John Dee lived several hundred years ago. Terms and words change their meaning - think "gay", or "car", or indeed "Indies". What evidence do you have that anyone in modern times uses this term to mean that the state of Ireland is or should be British? I have not seen any, and I also know of no political organisation that wants the state of Ireland to return to British rule. So who are these people that use "British Isles" in a political manner? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the BNP's policy on the matter. The Republic of Ireland is to be "invited" to rejoin the other nations of the "British Isles". 86.132.224.105 (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I note they write "In the long run, we wish to end the conflict in Ireland by welcoming Eire as well as Ulster as equal partners in a federation of the nations of the British Isles." They are "inviting" (ie it is an option) the state of Ireland into a "federation" (ie a partnership of equals). This is not claiming or suggesting that Ireland is or should be British, unless you take "British Isles" to mean that is the intent, which would be a circular argument because it again leads back to your (the Wikipedia contributor's) interpretation of it. Therefore I repeat: who is using British Isles as a political term? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In answer to MITH: Here is an example (p48-49) of the Context of Dee's use of the term BI. I cannot see that that underplaying his imperliaist credentials would do any justice to this article on an incongruous island group that somehow manages to incorporate the Channel Islands but not the Faroes or Chausey. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind seeing that whole comment -- the "others regard it purely as a geographical rather than political description" idea -- removed entirely. It supposes that Irish objections (and, in MITH's last suggested version, more specifically that Irish govt objections) are purely political, when I don't think we can say that they are. The Irish embassy spokesman makes a point of saying that even geographically they do not accept the term's association. So, I think drawing a strict divide between those who object vs. those with no objections because it's geographical is problematic. Nuclare (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

John Dee was not the first Englishman to use the term. Ambassador Nicholas Throckmorton used the term British Isle in reference to a desirable union between England and Scotland in a letter written in 1560. This is sourced from Antonia Fraser's biography on Mary, Queen of Scots. It is notable that Isle is singular, thus he was not including Ireland in his use of the term.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the suggested wording by Mith, that as a second paragraph instead of what we have at the moment in paragraph two and three which mix together everything currently is much more clearer. Im still slightly concerned about the John Dee term, it seems disputed if he is the first or main person to use the term originally. If its not 100% clear he shouldnt be mentioned or atleast say "one of the early uses of the term was"... BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good to me BritishWatcher. Dee first used it in 1577, which is 17 years after Throckmorton's letter in 1560 when he referred to the term. It would be quite difficult to pinpoint the exact time when the term was first coined and by whom. It was obviously not John Dee, and we have no idea if Throckmorton coined it personally or possibly heard the term spoken by his sovereign Elizabeth I.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED is a blue chip reference. Jeanne boleyn, I'm struggling to confirm what you are saying; Can you provide a reference better than this? Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that a claim being made by an editor here is that the OED made changes based on being contacted by the same editor that pointed out the John Dee reference. Also, your Google Books reference does not show any usage of the term "British Isle" - I assume this is what you intended to point out and you are asking Jeanne to provide a reference? --HighKing (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Fraser quotes Throckmorton's statement on pages 191-92 of the paperback version of her biography on Mary Stuart. She obtained Throckmorton's statement on pages 84 and 58 from Wright's biography on Elizabeth I which was published in 1838. Here's the quote made by Sir Nicholas back in 1560: Methinketh it were to be wished of all wise men and her Majesties good subjects, that one of the two Queens of the Ile of Britain were transformed into the shape of a man to make so a happy a marriage, as thereby there might be an unitie of the whole and their appendances.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to User:MusicInTheHouse's proposal. It's a vast improvement on the present lead and reads more logically. If we can sort out whether or not John Dee was the first or not to use the phrase, can we agree the proposal? Skinsmoke (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is about MITHs proposal and, in particular, the imperialist coining of the term. I do not think first usage is an issue - there is a wikipage of difference between the Ile of Britain and the Brytish Iles Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That was my original point in citing Ambassador Throckmorton. He was clearing referring to a desirable union between Scotland and England, which combined with Wales would thereby form the British Ile. Recall that Elizabeth I was an ardent English nationalist yet clearly in possession of a Welsh surname. It behoved Sir Nicholas to use the all-inclusive term British which provided part-Welsh Elizabeth Tudor with a closer link to the English nation under the umbrella term British Ile. Remember in the 16th century British meant Welsh. Ireland was never considered British at all. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not utterly ignorant of the humours and inclinations of the people of this Albion, being (now) the greater portion of The British Empire Ref p57. The Elizabethan, Dee, was not using the term British to refer to the Welsh but as a jusification for a policy of expansionism. At that time there were no colonial possessions apart from Ireland ie British Empire and British Isles were synonyms. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Throckmorton used the term Isle of Britain. This has no bearing whatsoever on the use of the term British Isles. ðarkuncoll 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for greater tolerance here

One has to give an A+ for effort, to those who are anti-British Isles term, though. As for their reasons for being anti-British Isles term? I won't go into that.GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Everybody here understands the motives of those who are against the term, but sympathy or empathy for their cause, does not excuse the term being used as a "political football", because it gets the article nowhere. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Well, Catterick. It would be much more helpful for the purposes of the good old fight you are seeking if you could write with greater clarity. The above is remarkably turgid. Short, crisp, and clear sentences are nice. A bit of lucid prose never harmed a man (unless he was a politician).Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's ironic that Irish nationalists, "opposed to association with Britishness" choose the British Parliament's collective term "Great Britain and Ireland", to describe the Act of Union (1800). Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

PS User Talk:Catterick, Oddly enough I'm not in the slightest surprised that you think the flag of Leinster is on the coat of arms of the English monarch. Do you do this much research for all your views? There's too much heat and not enough light coming from your writing. Dunlavin Green (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As to your assumption about my understanding of the harp, well, the point is, how very similar the symbols are between them. The harp is used both for all Ireland and Leinster, depending on the colours and design of harp, but the fact remains, there is enough similarity between them to cause truer dissatisfaction than the "correct terminology" as activists here are continuing to promote, against the WP:TEND policy.

There is a related discussion about "Britishness" which should defuse the parties from aggression on this article, if only a distraction from personal feelings and biases currently put forth to the detriment of progress on the "British Isles" article and its talk page: Talk:English_people#Nationalities Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Reading a discussion at talk:United Kingdom it appears we have a misdirect. British isles clearly means 'islands owned by Britain'; therefore the redirect to British Isles is incorrect. I suggest that a way out of the naming dispute would be to create an article called British isles and include the current BI article minus content referring to the Irish State. British Isles could become a skeleton article merely stating out that "The British isles and Republic of Ireland are collectively known in Britain as the "British Isles"

This would be a solution compatible with WP:NPOV. In any case British isles cannot continue as a redirect to British Isles. If there are no objections I'll make the necessary moves. Sarah777 (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have List of islands of the United Kingdom. Though it might be worth redirecting British isles to that article, rather than here - though it could reasonably be someone wanting to reach British Isles but making a typing error. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to redirect British isles to British Isles because as Pretty Green says, it's a common typo made by people who want to read about the real thing. Yes, The British isles could be taken to mean the islands owned by Britain but I'm not aware of anything with that formal designation, so there should be no article about it. At the moment it's a good redirect, so Sarah, don't make the move. LevenBoy (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree LB, no move to be made--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article exists at British Islands. --Bill Reid | (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not just a common typo, people don't always search in Wikipedia in proper capitalisation, I know I don't. Someone typing in British isles (incidentally because of the way the MediaWiki software works, also got to through british isles) is more likely to be looking for British Isles than the islands of the UK. Worst case scenario though, it could be a simple dab page to send to both articles. Canterbury Tail talk 11:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply delete British isles? It has no useful history and is a remnant from the time when typing in "british isles" would not automatically reach the right article if there were no redirect. The only purposes it fills now is catching a very small number of incoming links (which can easily be changed) and discouraging someone who accidentally creates a new such redlink from creating a new article on the subject. Also note Wikipedia:Redirect: "Related redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations. They are not needed, for example, for proper names which are all initial caps." —JAO • T • C 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Also an option. Canterbury Tail talk 12:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

British isles should continue to redirect to British Isles, its more than likely that people simply forget to put a capital I in isle and are looking for this article and i strongly oppose any change to the redirect. Right at the top of this article a mention of the British Islands is very clear.. no change is needed, this is another attempt by certain individuals to undermine the British Isles article. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that relate to my suggestion to delete the redirect altogether? If so, then I can assure you that it would not be any more difficult to find this article without the redirect. Typing in "british isles" or "British isles" and clicking Go would lead you here just like now, only without that annoying "(Redirected from British isles)" message. —JAO • T • C 15:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the second word had to have the correct capitals otherwise you dont go directly to the article which is why a redirect was created in the first place a long time ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That did indeed use to be the case, but the MediaWiki software has been updated subsequent to that so it is no longer necessary. Canterbury Tail talk 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ahh ok then the redirect may aswell be removed although we need to be careful that someone doesnt try to create a new article on British isles to cover the British islands there too. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If we do want rid of it, we'll have to go to the appropriate Redirects for Deletion page. Canterbury Tail talk 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I cited two reasons for the move; that fact that per the British Wiki Editors "British Isles" is utterly different from "British isles" - so how can the redirect be sustained, by your own logic? But also that my suggestion would help remove the breach of WP:NPOV inherent in the current imposition of the British name, "British Isles", to include the Irish state. Sarah777 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarah you talk crap im sorry but British isles should continue to take people to this article. British Islands covers the Islands that are "British", the British Isles is a geographical term which you do not accept, thats never going to change but just because you dont like something it doesnt mean wikipedia has to change titles or content. Any attempt to try and stop British isles from coming to this page is likely to be reverted so dont try it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

<rant>Soooo - once again an argumetn ends comes to name-calling. Great. From my POV, Sarah777 has raised a legitimate point. She has not argued in her proposal to get rid of "British Isles" - please read what was actually said and stop meandering off into rhetoric. Also, threats such as "any attempt to ... so dont try it" are equally meaningless seeing as how it's just more off-topic rhetoric, and just ends up pissing off the community.</rant>

I initially supported the proposal to get rid of the redirect, but that leaves the problem (and correct me if I interpret this incorrectly) that if someone types in "British isles", they'll end up at "British Isles" anyway. If so, this doesn't actually fix the problem and perhaps a small dab page should then be placed at "British isles" instead, directing editors to either "British Isles" or "British islands"? --HighKing (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. That's a good compromise, provided it remains a simple disambiguation with short, accurate descriptions of British Isles and British Islands, e.g. "For the geographical entity known as the British Isles...... For areas of the British Isles with links to the British Monarchy ........." LevenBoy (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

People know that the British Isles is a geographic location, the majority of people do not use the term "British isles" when thinking about the British Islands. This is clearly the main article which people are looking for and anyone that arrives here can see right at the top of the page the link to British Islands explaining that is the Islands which are "British". There is no real reason for a Disam page, the current setup should remain although removing the redirect can be done aslong as it still leads to this article. I didnt make a threat, i simply pointed out what would happen incase Sarah tried to make major changes as she has in the past before consensus is reached.

People should be careful about accepting this idea as a compromise, its the first step which has implications for the future. If they can succesfully argue that British isles requires a disam page, British Isles will be next on the list for a disam page as well which is their ultimate goal, to undermine the British Isles article or get its name changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd forgotten about the banner at the top of the page. Maybe best to get rid of Bi then, but it's doing no real harm as it stands. I agree with your comments about those who seek to undermine the BI article. LevenBoy (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF and stop trying to assign motivations that every suggested change, no matter how minor, is somehow a clever plot to undermine the British Isles article. I don't see how not accepting that typing "British isles" and ending up at "British Isles" is somehow undermining the British Isles article. I see no evidence that this suggestion is the first step on a list that has implications for the future. Judge this on its own merits - and sure with the number of clever and watchful people about, no plot would stand a chance anyway.... --HighKing (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Some people have had an agenda on this article for a very long time, past actions prove this to be the case. Im sorry but right now British isles redirects here, thats fine and if we remove the redirect (because the system now automatically will bring people here anyway) thats fine. However if we create a disam page at British isles, it will not be long before someone seeks to have a disam page here at British Isles. It may not be a plot, but the proposed change could have major implications for this article in the future. There is no need for a disam page at British isles, the meaning of the word is very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then we agree for the most part. But the question I asked is, what happens if the redirect is removed and someone types in "British isles"? If it still goes to "British Isles", then this is incorrect (as we agree). --HighKing (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No we do not agree, British isles should continue to end up at this article because when people type British isles they have simply forgotten to put a capital I. By the way you can make the change to the article highking, but please dont label an IPs edit vandalism when they simply make a reasonable change like that, several have concerns about that sentence remaining. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I said we agree "for the most part", which we do. We disagree over a dab at "British isles" which is odd, because you agree that it has a different meaning that "British Isles", but you're happy that it takes people here??? As for the anon IP - it was vandalism as a discussion had taken place already, and the cowardly anon IP hadn't the balls to make the change using their own login. And don't make me laugh by trying to make the argument that the anon IP wasn't aware of the previous discussion.... --HighKing (talk) 12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Does it really take balls to log in as "HighKing"? (your real name, i'm sure). A correction is not vandalism. It's rather comical that this page is being hijacked by Irish Nationalists, who claim the term "British Isles" is a political term used by the British as part of their claim for sovereignty over Ireland, a term only used by the imperialist British & yet it seems only the Irish consider themselves capable of defining the term. If it's a British term, surely the definition should reflect what it meant to those British that were using the term. As it happens i hadn't read all the discussion on here & simply thought it must have been a mistake otherwise I wouldn't have proceeded to "vandalise", but do make more unfounded assumptions. The term British Isles is a geographical term for the group of islands, even if it has associated political significance, either intrinsic or attributed. The Irish may consider it to be an offensive term imposed upon them, a reasonable perspective. But that needs to be explained, it doesn't change it, anymore than if in a hundred years time the UK is no more & a united Ireland together with independant Wales, Scotland & England are part of a European super state & the term British Isles is then long-forgotten through lack of use - the definition of what would then be an historical term would still be the same. I don't see how Ireland can be retrospectively excluded from the British Isles, anymore than it can exclude itself from being in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 01:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) The title of this article will never be changed. As for the content? that's another story. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that It makes sense to redirect British isles to British Isles because as Pretty Green says, it's a common typo made by people who want to read about the real thing. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this argument works well against keeping British isles and turning it into something other than a redirect, it still does not handle my counter-proposal to delete British isles altogether. My ever more tiresome point is that people typing "British isles" or "british isles" would get here and be able to read about the British Isles even without that obsolete redirect. —JAO • T • C 06:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with deleting the redirect, although its alot of agro to deal with a change which will make very little difference. Just as long as Sarahs idea about a Disam isnt done and British isles continues to end up here. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete the redirect and there is nothing to stop people creating a new article at that location, unless it's salted. Also to delete the redirect you really need to have the discussion at Articles for deletion. I see no harm with leaving the redirect as it is, but perhaps if you feel the need, getting it permanently protected. Canterbury Tail talk 11:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but did I miss something? Like the argument *against* a small dab at "British isles"? There's a strong argument *for* a dab.... --12:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you've missed nothing. I'm just stating how to go about each option, not putting an opinion on what option to go for. If it's decided people want the redirect deleted then it needs to go to AFD, it's not a final decision that can be made on this page. Canterbury Tail talk 12:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Change the introduction (break)

I gave this another go, attempting to fix problems raised here on the talk page.

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland. No branch of the Government of Ireland officially uses the term British Isles, and in relations with the United Kingdom the term "these islands" is used. The term was introduced to English in the late 16th century by English and Welsh writers whose writings have been described as politicized. Despite some seeing the term as a value-free geographic one, alternative names for the group have emerged such as "Britain and Ireland".

If there are any problems post them here and together we might try get an intro which has actually has consensus for once!MITH 12:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Despite the innumerable abuses many have suffered in the process of this article: Yes, this is a good start, although the citations are not especially attractive, nor is the hang-up with Dee, for he is one sand particle in the Sahara of those who have used the term. His use of the term was only instrumental and complementary to Throckmorton's, in the context of Anglo-Scottish relations and not necessarily Irish, although Irish is implied among Elizabeth's dominions, which James would succeed to and it is under him, that "Great Britain" began to have official use in many conventions. The distinction of Ireland from "Great Britain", dates from 1800, not the earlier Anglo-Irish community held by the Tudors and earlier period going back to Strongbow, which held to a difference between the Scots (and Manx, for that matter), from their southern neighbours. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't specifically mention Dee, just "writers". What exactly is wrong with the citations in your opinion?MITH 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, what I meant was that the 16th century, as has been amended for broadness, still doesn't have as much bearing on a British/Irish disparity, as that which progressed later. For instance, while England and Ireland were once really close, there was a new association between those in the larger island, that neglected and shunted Ireland. It is from this reconstructed environment, that Ireland became the "other", as Scotland had been not so long ago. It really is a matter of evolutionary perspective. The cites which mention geography and politics, seem more like the kind of discussion we as editors, should be having here, not left to the confusion of readers as to the point. We are familiar with the nature of perceptive difficulties, but it is less encyclopedic. My apologies, as it is your work in finding the links. I appreciate the breadth of understanding implied within the links discussing geopolitical issues, but they are tangential. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dee's introduction of the term should be included in the introduction to the article as should its meaning then and its evolution to its current usage. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Some editors have said don't specifically point to Dee as the term's inventor while you're saying now we should? Could you propose a rough sentence of what you'd like to see? I have no idea how one could succesfully include the evolution of the term concisely and accurately enough in the introduction of the piece; especially as it meant to be a geography article and not directly about the term per se.MITH 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not deny that the Tudors' Welshness was instrumental in turning the hand of the Scots to the goal of a British Empire in Ireland, but this did not become a de facto reality until after England and Scotland had united. In any case, while the resurrection of the term was clearly in the Henrician "assumption of powers" style, the very name itself has neutral origins. The Greeks do not leave us with much to conclude as to the nature of the collective isles, deemed "British" by them. It is a simple fact, perhaps we should be grateful that there is no pov associated with the original use, other than conveying the fact that we were barbarians to them. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you're going off on an awful tangent that has nothing to do with my proposed text.If you want to have some input can you please keep on topic to the matter at hand and explain what exactly it is you propose to change to the proposed text and a brief reason why. (not a babbling history lesson and how they affect your views etc.). Thank you.MITH 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'd stop hinging everything on the Tudor imagination, you'd see that real and concrete examples of British imperialism happened after Elizabeth. The Stuarts did base their policies on the aspirations of their predecessors. I believe that actions, more than words, truly matter more than the tangents about "loaded terms". So why doesn't this article reflect upon the process of "Britannicising" the isles, which was not done until after Dee and the present focus had passed? Can't you look at the big picture, or will you squabble over minutiae? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again: "Britain and Ireland" is not an alternative term that has "emerged"; its use in the English language predates "British Isles" and was by far the most common term in the early modern period. From Campion to Francis Bacon, "Britain and Ireland" was the preferred term and "British Isles" is nowhere to be seen in their work. This is myth-making driven by an acceptance of the claims of the pro British Isles brigade here. The historical truth is that "British Isles" has "emerged" in the English language in tandem with the emergence of British control over Ireland. Get the sequence correct. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Why, also, is the fact that John Dee was an imperialist being removed from this introduction? It is verifiable and well referenced. Inconvenient for advocates of "British Isles" ideology sure, but obscurantism is no reason for it to be removed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And again, "some" Irish people object to this term? Who decided to remove the well-referenced word "many"? This article is increasingly a vehicle for British eurosceptics intent upon separating Britain from the rest of Europe. Using this term is central to that political aim. This context is the elephant in the room that you are all avoiding.Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, please, please: Whoever you are? create an account & sign-in, if you're interested in these British & Irish political discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please feck off, GoodDay. I forgot to log-in and came back to log in and edit it accordingly but some gobshite made me go through an edit conflict. You wouldn't know anything about that now? ;-) Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What people are forgetting is that John Dee was not a politician; he was an astrologer, occultist and a mathematician. Why he is being denounced as the chief architect of the British Empire, I wait patiently to be enlghtened.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent scholarship on the ideological origins of the British Empire has emphasized the importance of John Dee's imperial writings ref Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, one cannot compare him to William Cecil or Francis Walsingham! He was not a statesman. His influence on Queen Elizabeth was metaphysical not political.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn, I suggest you read his work, and that of his many biographers who have no hesitation in describing him as an imperialist. This is verifiable. That is what matters as far as this article is concerned. Saying he was not a politician is akin to saying all the poets, musicians, theorists and so forth of medieval and early modern Europe were not politicians even though they made their living from patrons who most certainly expected them to adhere to their political views and interests. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What you say is true (look at how Shakespeare distorted history) but due to the fact that England in the 1570s was not yey ready to challenge the might of the Spanish Empire, Dee's writings were, in the end, irrelevant to Elizabethan policy-making.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying hes an imperialist is clearly to help push a point of view but thats not what bothers me. What im concerned about is the fact it seems disputed if Dee really was the first person to use the term in English. If there is any doubt at all we should remove dee from the introduction or atleast say One of the first to use the terms.. or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the emerging word in the last line is the below any better for people?

Despite some seeing the term as a value-free geographic one, due to the controversy alternative names for the group have such as "Britain and Ireland" are becoming more frequently used.

I don't know what to do about whether to include John Dee or not in the intro. If its agreed to put him in it'll be something like:

The term was first introduced to the English language in the late 16th century by British writers such as John Dee whose writings have been described as politicized.

Thoughts on these would be appreciated.MITH 17:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your version, but British writer needs to be replaced with English writer. He wouldn't have been called British in his lifetime.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Which British/English writers the late 16th century are we referring to?. I am not aware of any supported by the references provided by MITH. I am aware of only one writer supported by the references - John Dee. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity you didn't give the entire quote above so here is the relevant bits: Recent scholarship on the ideological origins of the British Empire has emphasized the importance of John Dee's imperial writings ... in justifying the Elizabethan exploitation of English Atlantic discoveries. Yet a closer reading of these writings in the context of European politics, Elizabethan Court intrigues, and Dee's occult natural philosophy and magical imperialism reveals their covert purpose of recovering a lost British Empire in Europe. So, from your own quote, Dee's motives were not imperialistic in the sense of colonising the new lands in America but really harping back to the mythical Arthurian European empire that was lost. The quote ends with: Dee's writings remained problematic not only because restoring the British Empire in Europe would entail confronting Spain, but also because in their hidden centre they proposed the creation of an apocalyptic empire by magical means, particularly the philosopher's stone. In the end the contingent events that made Dee's writings briefly influential ensured their ultimate irrelevance to Elizabethan policy-making. Dee's British Empire is not the one that you would like us to believe it is by taking selective bits of quotations.--Bill Reid | (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Point to Billreid. I was responding to a specific request by Jeanne Boleyn for some enlghtenment- I think you will find that I did provide the whole quote Here. The ref link takes you straight there. Were you unaware of that?. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dee is one of those larger than life characters who had to be read in the context of the beliefs of his time. What is clear as far as I can see is that the term originates with him and is a component of the emerging concept of Empire. European or US it makes little difference. --Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's right, the term does seem to originate with him but I'm specifically referring to this quote as evidence for British imperialism and it simply doesn't stack up. The quote is being used to prove a certain opinion of Atlantic imperialism whereas it specifies that Dee was referring to the myths surrounding the mythical Arthur. This particular quote doesn't prove what the editor wanted it to and so needs to find another. If there is evidence for a British imperialism rather than English imperialism in Tudor times then bring it forward. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From the same reference - that I provided (pity you didn't...etc etc) - Consequently his writings only gained attention when revised to align with the policies of powerful courtiers such as the earl of Leicester. Now according to his Wikipage, Leicester intrigued to send Essex back to Ireland...hmmm Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Essex you are referring to is Walter Devereux, 1st Earl of Essex. The reason Leicester wanted him in Ireland was so he could conduct his affair with Walter's wife Lettice in greater comfort without the tiresome encumbrance of a husband nearby. Walter's son Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex was sent to Ireland as Lord Lieutenant after Leicester's death which occurred in 1588.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet when I read Essex's wikipage I see to subdue or colonize...brutal massacres...chiefly women and children. Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But why should Robert Dudley be made to take the rap (more than four hundred years after the fact) for the brutal atrocities committed by Walter Devereux? Dudley encouraged the queen to send him to Ireland for personal, base reasons prompted by the stirring in his loins, not for any political or imperialist motives--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

For Þjóðólfr. Yes my response was to your original quotation, hence my opening Pity you didn't give the entire quote above . As far as I can see you selectively used the first line of the journal that you linked to whereas the entire link goes on to prove the opposite of what you were trying to indicate. As for your other comments re Leicester and Essex, Jeanne has very eloquently given you a reply. Dee's Ireland [and Scotland, Norway and Iceland] is very firmly in Dee's mythical Arthurian European British Empire. Bill Reid | (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my rather crude response, but I have discovered that vulgarity can be most effective in making a point. The problem was that the editor with the Norse name (my Italian laptop doesn't sport those characters), gave the part of the quotation on Dee to support his/her POV-namely that Dee was an arch-imperialist and the chief architect of the British Empire, but failed to write the entire quote which confirms the fact that his writings were metaphysical in nature with the view-as you have stated Bill- to the rediscovery of a British pre-Roman, mythical Arthurian empire, which would naturally have pleased Elizabeth Tudor with her Welsh origins and staunch English nationalism. You will recall that Elizabeth's grandfather Henry VII named his eldest son Arthur. Anyway, as the quotation confirms, Dee's writings did not shape Elizabethan policy. Lord Burghley headed the Queen's council not John Dee! --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, you can call me Thjod. My view is that Dee was certainly an imperialist: he even coined the term British Empire; I most certainly have no view on who was the chief architect of the British Empire. Dee is also responsible for the first documented use of the term British Isles - an area that was synonymous with his British Empire. Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Danish and French island coverage

For the sake of avoiding politics, can we explore their archipelagic relationship, in the context of "British Isles"? Don't worry, this kind of inclusionism probably won't attract claims for Heligoland! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to explore away, and let us know your findings. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't intend to do anything arbitrary, as I am asking for this topic to continue to be discussed, as concerning geography. If you intend to make insults instead of take this seriously, then why bother? Many have addressed this topic, but there has been little concrete discussion on the relation of the non-traditional "British Isles" to the rest. The problem, is that the Greeks did not define all of the "British Isles", but confined their statements to the larger ones, i.e. Albion and Erin foremost. The Romans were more concerned with their own part of the British Isles, rather than all of them in general, even though notes on them were made. For the Channel, well, it was called "Oceanus Britannicus", so why would the local islands not be "British"? The Faroes seem to be a northernmost extension of the "British Isles", for they are certainly not Icelandic. Consider the convention on mountain articles here at Wikipedia. The Pennines are considered to be part of the Snowdonian mountain chain, their own being a sub-form of Ben Nevis's mountains. It's not political... Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Some" see the term as value-free geographic

"Despite some seeing the term as a value-free geographic one". some? some? Is "some" the word that we would use to describe the majority of the world's English speaking population? And I still haven't a single reference showing that it is intentionally used otherwise in the modern era. This is 2009, not the 16th century. The "British Empire" did not mean then what it means now, either. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

> Can you prove that they are using it geographically? There's nothing, or at least very little, geographical about the word 'British' when it comes to Ireland, particularly when it is making a claim over Ireland as the term "British Isles" is. It is intellectually offensive to contend otherwise given 400 years of British colonial subjugation of the Irish people. "value-free geographical term" indeed. The British, the accidental colonisers, century after century. Misunderstood people just trying to help the poor Irish. 4 years maybe; 400 years no way. There's a malice at the heart of British culture that despises us. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why dont you take your pathetic little rants elsewhere Dunlavin Green, they certainly dont help resolve the problems with this article. Almost all sources of the term "british isles" use it when talking about a geographical location, the use of the term is clear but someone like yourself is never going to be satisified until British Isles is removed from history.. Its not political as mentioned before, is the Irish sea political because it has Irish in the name? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That's rich coming from a guy flying the Butcher's Apron from his User Page - no politics there! -and telling the Irish that they are British by virtue of living in what he calls the "British Isles". Moreover, how ironic that you are trying to deny the politics of the term when the sole reason you, and your union jack mentality, support it is precisely because "British Isles" is a political claim over Ireland and the Irish people. Dee had his Arthurian myths, people like you and your "pathetic rants" have your British imperial myths of halcyon glory days when we were all apparently "British" (until those evil Irish nationalists ruined the peace, of course). Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lmao, i dont think British Isles is used politically today and i certainly dont think it makes everyone in these islands British. Its a geographical term and its used by many different people and sources. clearly you are biased and wish to do as much damage to this article as some other editors with similar political views. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can prove that most of the rest of the world use it rather one of the alternative terms then be my guest. Otherwise some with a reference explaining it will have to do.MITH 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

70million+ Google hits, 1million+ Google book hits, 162,000+ Google scholar hits. To put that into context, the equivalent numbers for "dog" are 436mm, 480,000 and 2.25mm. And, now try the same for one of the alternative forms. The point is that your proposed wording suggests that it is used today deliberately politically, when the fact is that it's not, and noone has yet proved otherwise. It is merely interpreted by some to be political, and the fact that this is so is verifiable. Therefore, the wording should reflect that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

ps the fact that it is a geographical label for the archipelago is verifiable at other encyclos. [2]. Note Britannica's definition [3] which again defines it as a geographical term, and then goes on to talk about the "some" in Ireland that find it controversial. That is the correct weighting. To suggest it is viewed by "some" as geographical is simply misleading. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But it's also objected to on geographical grounds. To say it's not political, and it's merely geographical is a "straw man" argument. Most of those hits are from British based websites. My point is that the Google argument is a waste of time, and doesn't hold much value. Purple ☎ 00:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Both you and MITH are missing the point. It is verifiable that the term's definition is geographical (see Encarta and Britannica). It is verifiable that the term is a very, very commonly used one, both on the web and in print. It is verifiable that the Irish government, and others (in Ireland or Irish-Americans), wish it no longer used. The wording should reflect the above: ie, it is a geographical term, but some find it controversial. All you have to do is find a usage of British Isles in a reliable source that is deliberately political to prove me wrong that it is a geographical term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no one trying to get rid of the term, and make it extinct. The term is objected to, both geographically and politically regarding the inclusion of Ireland, and this since 1922. The main geographical objection is that Ireland is not British, and the main political objection is, that although Ireland was once politically/militarily dominated by Britain, this is no longer the case. The fact is, at the risk of upsetting my Unionist cousins, and I have some, Ireland is not British, and it's very highly insulting for one nation to claim another nation. The controversy does not bother people in Ireland, as they rarely use the term, and the article must reflect those aspects. Purple ☎ 01:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"The main geographical objection is that Ireland is not British" - that is a political objection, not a geographical one, the same as statements such as "the Irish Sea is not Irish", "the Gulf of Mexico is not Mexican", "the English Channel is not English", or "the Sea of Japan is not Japanese". These geographical terms are not meant by the majority that do use them to carry political connotations, but the aggrieved minority feel that they do. A geographical objection would be, say, if Ireland was geologically of a different origin to Britain and therefore a geographical term to combine the two is wrong. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The Faroe Islands were geologically formed at the same time, so they too should be included in the term? Are the Channel Islands included? And why so? Is the United Kingdom the only democratic country in the modern world that lays claim to its neighbour, and with this absurd anachronism? But not all people in the UK like the term either, the two countries who lose out most are Wales and Scotland, for London always has Scottish oil, or Welsh coal to prop up the City, and keep the stockbroker commissions totting up. That will change too. Purple ☏ 04:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is an entirely different argument and you are off on a complete tangent there. We are discussing mainly Irish objections to the geographical term "British Isles", which are political, not based on geology or geography. Like it or not, they are in the same corner of Europe as the UK and will be for the forseeable future. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The distinction you are making between 'political' and geology/geography doesn't make sense. We're talking about names; and names when naming inhabited landmasses (as opposed to the unihabited bodies of water you list above), be they naming a geographical or political entity, have a habit of attaching themselves to the people who inhabit that landmass, again, regardless of whether the name names something political or geographical. Geographical 'Africa' leads to 'Africans.' Geographical Scandanavia leads to Scandanavians. The people of the geographical island often called Britain would pressumably be called British regardless of whether Britain also doubled as the informal name of a political state or not. That, I think, is the point Purple was originally making about 'geographical objections.' "British" isn't derived from geology. "British" doesn't describe the rocks or weather or land. If the islands were called the 'Rainy Isles' or "Rocky Isles," then your talk of 'geographic'/'geologic' might make sense, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. As to that sentence about 'value-free' geography/political objections--I repeat what I said above: eliminate it entirely. It's pointless. Nuclare (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat is correct, The British Isles is a geographical term, its just SOME people see it as a political one and take offense. The introduction shouldnt say "some see it just as a value free geographic term". If we are to use that sort of sentence, it should say MOST not some. Also i hate use of the word "value free", surely it be better just to say "only as a geographic term" or along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ The long standing consensus (after a lot of discussion and with many editors involved) was to leave the name as British Isles, focus on the geography and note Irish objections. Given that the term was also used politically, then reference to political objection is valid. The wording of those objections and the references was also agreed after mediation. If an improvement can be made to that, and more context provided as to the first use of the term and its development then that is good news. I suggest we focus on that wording. --Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus for the article to remain at British Isles and there was consensus for the wording of the first two paragraphs in the introduction. However the 3rd paragraph was slipped in just before the page was locked for a week and it has remained since, there was no consensus made on that paragraph before it was added and its still not clear if this Dee guy was the first person to use the term British Isles.

It seems sensible to try and combine those two sentences, both of which cover the objections by Irish people into one more clear statement. Ofcourse objections to the term must remain in the intro, but most people do consider the term geographical not political which is why the suggested wording of "Despite some seeing the term as a value-free geographic one"., that should say most, because all the sources for the term British Isles use it in a geographic way not a political one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Updated text:

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland. No branch of the Government of Ireland officially uses the term British Isles, and in relations with the United Kingdom the term "these islands" is used.The term was first introduced to the English language in the late 16th century by English writer John Dee whose writings have been described as being politicised.Despite the fact that its a regularly used geographic term, due to the controversy, alternative names for the group such as "Britain and Ireland" are becoming more frequently used.

Any better? Some is removed and it says that it is just a geographical term and is used regularly.MITH 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Better, but still pointless (the 'its geographical!' idea). When did the 'Govt of Ireland...doesn't use it officially' thing come in there? What's the point of that, given that no govt most likely uses it officially? The way it was before, if true, was at least noteworthy. Nuclare (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, im ok with most of that, although i agree with Nuclare about the govt bit. How about what we had before "and the government of Ireland discourages its use" being put on the end of the first sentence and remove "No branch of the Government of Ireland officially uses the term British Isles, in relations with the United Kingdom the term "these islands" is used." from the text which isnt needed and the following sentence makes it sound like Dee came up with "these islands". Im ok with the rest although im still concerned that we do not know for sure if Dee was really the first person to ever use the term, even if his use may of resulted in it becoming a well known phrase. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

soo... .

"The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland, and the Government of Ireland dscourages its use. The term was first introduced to the English language in the late 16th century by English writer John Dee whose writings have been described as being politicised. Despite the fact that its a regularly used geographic term, due to the controversy, alternative names for the group such as "Britain and Ireland" are becoming more frequently used. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the these isles bit is good information to include so there is only a slight difference in what I have put together at the moment.

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland. The Government of Ireland discourages its use, and in relations with the United Kingdom the term "these islands" is used.The term British Isles was first introduced to the English language in the late 16th century by English writer John Dee whose writings have been described as being politicised.Despite the fact that its a regularly used geographic term, due to the controversy, alternative names for the group such as "Britain and Ireland" are becoming more frequently used.

The only issue I think is getting everyone to agree on the 'Despite the fact that its a regularly used geographic term' line.MITH 12:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I quite like "Despite the fact that its a regularly used geographic term, due to the controversy, alternative names for the group such as "Britain and Ireland" are becoming more frequently used". Sources back up the fact that its still a regularly used geographic term, its said on the BBC every single day. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "Although still in use as a geographical term, the controversy means that alternative names such as "Britain & Ireland" are increasingly used". Its shorter and "increasingly" is more neutral. However I have no objection to MiH's words --Snowded ^TALK 12:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me, id prefer "still used" than "still in use" but either seems reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher but I'd support this version. --HighKing (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Why "politicised" when it is more precise to say that he was an imperialist advocating a British Empire covering Ireland? "Politicised" could mean anything. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• What are the two options here? Can someone cut and paste the two together, so they can seen side by side in their entirety? Thanks! Purple ☏ 15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm well its something like this..

The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the term "British" with Ireland. The Government of Ireland dscourages its use, and in relations with the United Kingdom the term "these islands" is used. The term British Isles was first introduced to the English language in the late 16th century by English writer John Dee whose writings have been described as being politicised. "Although still used as a geographical term, the controversy means that alternative names such as "Britain & Ireland" are increasingly used.

Im not sure about the these islands bit and the John Dee bit, but i like the final sentence. "term" also seems to be used far too much in the parargaph, about 5 times. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well at least there is one astrologer who is being taken seriously at Wikipedia which is indeed a beacon of hope in the dark sky of scepticism which surrounds astrology and the occult in general.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

He was equally an overt promoter of English imperialism 5.17- 5.18 Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

But he is better known in history as an astrolger and occultist, not an advocate of British Impelialism, which I still say was of a mystical Arthurian nature not the vast, globalised entity that later became the British Empire.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the "these islands" seems unnecessary when it already says the government discourages its use.T*85 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "term" can be reduced, but surely its notable what name the actual Governments of the British Isles use to call the British Isles?MITH 20:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to it being included, but it is not really completely accurate to say that in relations the term "these islands" are used because of some quotes from a speech. I would say if you listen to any political speech by a foreign leader they are going to use "our countries", "these islands", etc..T*85 (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a fair point. How about its kept in the piece but the bold text is removed so as not to suggest its an official alternative name of some sort?MITH 22:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that worksT*85 (talk) 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put in the text as it appears there's consensus for it. Definitely more so than the current text anyway.MITH 20:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I note that this improvement makes reference to the use of the alternative term "Britain & Ireland" which I recall Dunlavin Green, I think, stated was in use prior to the term "British Isles". If this is verifiably the case then the reference to this term should be tweaked to reflect the fact that is not a new term superceding "British Isles" but a term that either has a parallel or greater history of useage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.14.137 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pytheas by Cunliffe

MITH has removed this reference and why is that so, when this is supposed to be an article on geography, whereas there are loads of articles going on about the political side to "British Isles"? Why not bring back Cunliffe? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I just removed references I thought weren't referred to in the text. The other three definitely weren't. What section uses Pytheas by Cunliffe? I've no problem reinstating it, I'd just like to know. Maybe it should go in the extra reading section?MITH 08:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the Pytheas material by Cunliffe removed in the first place? Whoever did it, probably was one to insert a politicised take into the article instead. I don't know, because I haven't been following this article very long. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the names throughout the ages section? That was moved to the naming dispute article as that dealt with names. It was almost certainly not political. Should I reinstate and move Pytheas into the extra reading section?MITH 08:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm only referring to WP:WEIGHT. We have references and implications because of John Dee, but less focus on Pytheas and the origin of the term, which was translated into English, for it is not a made up name. Why else has all this talk page conflict transpired? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

A spell conducted by John Dee?

So the creation of the British Empire was the result of a spell conducted by John Dee? Excellent! I've been a member of, and even founded a couple of, magical orders, but this must rank as the most successful spell of all time. Bringing civilisation to the world - especially Ireland, an intractable thorn in the side of Britain since Roman times - spreading our language, culture and people to America, Australia etc. so that they now form the dominant civilisation of the earth, all the result of some occult working by Dr Dee. Why don't we add this to the British Empire article? ðarkuncoll 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just to remind you, just about all British culture was appropriated from the Continent of Europe, especially France, Spanish, Dutch, Germans, and of course the Italians. Soap-box time! Purple ☎ 23:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, there is no reason to try and break each other's pride. My pride is with Europe and it nevertheless, does not surprise me that so many anti-British people here still think I have a political motivation. I have declared my only political hang-ups, about the Tudor usurpation and the trail of destruction in their wake, such as the Hanoverians, who implemented the terms "GB & IE" in their official ruling style. To boot, I wish we could have not had a Reformation and all the Protestant abuses which befell not only Ireland, but England as well. I still have no problem with the terminology, because I am a classicist and appreciate the British Isles' place in antiquity, before there was any modern polity appropriating the name. Of course, anti-BI people have removed any mention of pre-Dee usage, to myopically accentuate their pov points, that "British" means narrowly, the rule of Ireland by London, when England before the Tudors did not even bother with this kind of mysticism of Arthur and debasement of the terminology for political purposes. The Welsh Tudors probably considered everybody else undeserving of any independence and this was likely coloured by the equation of Welsh=British. My own ancestors were hung in scores for treason by them, simply because they didn't want to go along with the new era of Machiavelli. I'm not saying they were St. Thomas More, but merely describing how people like Snowded can be so off the mark. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well that was a revealing exchange. Tharky believes that the British Empire brought civilisation to the world and they should be grateful for it, while Catterick holds a torch for the House of York and thinks that the Tudors were a Welsh conspiracy that resulted in the reformation and other calamities. Perhaps we should forget the role of the Irish Monasteries during the middle ages, the pre-smallpox civilisations of the Americas, the rich traditions of India and the Unique culture of the indigenous people of Australia who were subject to one of the worst, and least reported acts of genocide in human history. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So what if we all have our own views? At least I fess up with mine. I don't pretend impartiality. I believe in aggregate understandings by a "meeting of the minds". You can feel proud of the Tudors for the high profile they brought to Welsh people, as well as Ireland, being raised into a proper kingdom. I understand a multicultural viewpoint, without having to believe in the Union as it has come about. I'm also not engaging in any tendentious editing to support my personal sentiments. I don't belong to any Ricardian club either. Do you want to inspect my postbox for proof? I can appreciate other points of view, when they are not absolutist and exclusionist. Why is is in error to list both Pytheas and Dee? As it stands now, nobody reading this page has a clue where Dee got his formulation from, thus believing Dee made it up out of thin air. It was not out of thin air, that the Tudors used Anglia as a vehicle, a meatmarket to conquer all their neighbours, to restore the fallen Welsh glories from Arthur. Do it in their name and blame them just the same. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think the Roman Empire brought civilisation to the world, even though its expansion was bitterly resisted by those it conquered. Yet do we now consider the Roman Empire's contribution to the development of human society largely positive, or negative? Empires, by their very nature, do things that treated as individual incidents could certainly be described as wrong, but this is to ignore the bigger picture. To make an omlette you have to crack some eggs, and there is no doubt whatsoever that future historians will regard the British Empire as extremely important and beneficial for humanity. Perhaps we're still a little too close to it in time at the moment. ðarkuncoll 08:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Lol, crack some eggs. Unfortunately, no matter how much breadth of understanding we show to treasure things larger than ourselves, thus displaying humility, it is as though we ought to be about self-promotion instead. After all, what else to the table have the anti-BI editors been bringing with the demands and edits to the article, that they should echo a political, rather than geographic agenda? I don't want connotations of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Perhaps it's offensive for some reason. What do you think, separatists? Do you wish to be joined at the hip through an official description which treats Ireland as "the other"? That's not how Ireland was before the Scottish union took precedence and left Ireland to sink fast, beneath the weight of Ulster Scots terrorists. It is either political separatism or geographical collectivism, not political collectivism or geographical separatism. Get it right! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So I guess by your logic, you're admitting stuff like the Irish Famine/Genocide was wrong but because the bigger picture is that the resulting diaspora greatly expanded Ireland's cultural influence worldwide it means that it was ok? Or that the genocide against the Aborigines was also an error but because Australia is now a developed country the end justifies the means? The British did terrible things in the name of the empire and its the reason why Irish take such offense at being labeled British. I'm not particularly anti British or anti British Isles but I can perfectly understand why someone could be.MITH 08:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Irish Potato Famine was not genocide - this is just propaganda. As for the Aborigines, have you noticed how Australians take credit for what their British ancestors did upon arrival if it was a good thing, but with regard to the Aborigines, it was definitely the British who killed them. Still, there's no doubt who currently benefits - the Australians, with all that lovely desert to call their own. ðarkuncoll 09:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the penal attitude sure goeth a long way! MITH, you insinuate and allege far too much, which is the case with all BI haters here. You obstruct such a simple thing as reading through an article passively, not judging anybody for any reason, with respect to BI, as it may be written. Your canonical revisionism is like "yes" means "no" and "no" means "yes". Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I think your two voices (Tharky & Catterick) speak volumes for your wider contributions. --Snowded ^TALK 10:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

My word is my bond. The same cannot be said for you. Oh, "rue the day" anybody ever thought the Scots, Welsh and Angles were any more British than the Irish, except in political terms, whether during the Roman period, or when the Georgian Parliament disincluded Irish people from the sense of British, because they were Catholics and "foreign". It is not like the provinces are countries in their own right, in step with your pov, which undeservingly gives Ireland an unprecendented equality between itself and 2 1/2 other countries also British. This isn't a duet, but much more diverse than you'd have it be. Understand proportion (i.e. WP:WEIGHT). Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if your word was intelligible then a judgement on its bonding qualities might be possible. The past is the past, in practice if we are into alternative histories then I am happy to agree that the house of York would have been better for the world than that of Lancaster, that the reformation was a bad thing and Britain integrated to Europe would be better than "England Alone". I also think that its a shame the Welsh did not support de Montforte at the Battle of Evesham and that Glyndŵr did not support Hotspur at the Battle of Shrewsbury. All good stuff, but we are dealing now with the present and in that context the Georgian Parliament existed. --Snowded ^TALK 11:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is two-faced to argue against "British Isles" for claims that it implies English sovereignty over Ireland, whereas Ireland was historically subordinated under the name "Great Britain and Ireland", as well as the current incarnation of "Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? You come off with extreme Unionist terminology, while acting the part of a separatist. Which is it? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

If you just add the flow of time to that statement Catterick then you have made the argument well for getting rid of the term here. --Snowded ^TALK 11:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What you said means nothing. Explain, or twist and weave how you will. It makes no difference, as time after time you have demonstrated by your words, to deceive and pretend innocence. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, suitably humbled I'll take myself off for the odd Hail Mary and a Novena or two to reflect on my inability to comprehend your wisdom. --Snowded ^TALK 11:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It is Sunday. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What political motivation...

What political motivation can be attributed to the famous Flemish mapmaker Ortelius, when he drew the British Isles (clearly labelled as such, in Latin) in 1570? [4] John Dee was himself an acomplished geographer, producing many maps of his own, in addition to being a Classical scholar. Could his motivation for rendering the term into English actually have been primarily geographical? If this is even a possibility, we need to balance out the POV currently in the opening section of the article. ðarkuncoll 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea that Dee's motivations would be solely those of a dedicated map maker is stretching things even by your standards Tharky, given his general bent to authenticate Elizabeth within the Arthurian tradition (or at least his mystical version thereof) I think we can dismiss that one. --Snowded ^TALK 22:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that I never said geography was Dee's sole motivation. But what you're saying, in effect, is that it played no part in his motives at all. Which of our positions is the more untenable? Is the existence of Ortelius's map pure coincidence? ðarkuncoll 22:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get your translations from. Ortelius' map translates as the "Britannicar Islands", or to paraphrase, 'Islands belonging to Britain'. How do you make B'Isles out of that map? Purple ☏ 23:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In what way is "British Isles" not a valid translation? It's far more succinct and natural than "Islands Belonging to Britain". It is the translation popularised by Dee and his contemporaries, and is therefore the one we have inherited today. ðarkuncoll 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be "Islands belonging to the island of Britain"? --HighKing (talk) 10:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dee's (and those other unionists') claims are not merely, as is made to be here, about the mystical empire of Arthur, but about anti-Plantagenet "reprogramming" of the British Isles to sever the ties recently diminished with Calais. "British Isles" thus, has only two real political meanings.

• First; in the idea that "this realm of England is an island", to stress that the Roman and Norman ties and focus of the government was lost to history, that the new point of view, was to stratify all of the islands under one rule, inspired by the Tudors and followed by the Stuarts, etc., rather than get "bogged down" in France or the Continent. The politicians believed that the claim to France was a pretended power and they wanted to see real results, which were prevented by the Wars of the Roses, but which opened the way for the British Tudors. My bias: I am against this political use, because I am an unabashed Ricardian.

• Second; I don't like this isolationism from the Continent, yet, cannot deny how the term "British" predates any political assumption. "America" was once considered a single continent by ignorant cartographers, until in 1776, the USA was born. Just because they appropriated the name for themselves, does not erase the original source of the name. The attempt to myopically focus on Dee, is to bury the more distant past, with the object of securing this term's definition and currency at Wikipedia as POV, politicising. The most political the term "British Isles" may imply in its original use, is that the people painted themselves. I don't know a damned thing whether the "woad" practice was widespread throughout the British Isles. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the modern interpretation of the word "British" is "belongs to Britain". Most people interpret the term "British Isles" as the isles/areas that belong to Britain. The argument about "Irish Sea" or "Indian Ocean" is a red herring because most people know that oceans and seas aren't "owned" by any nation, but land is. The eyptomology of the term is also subject to a little sleight of hand because the term was popularized as a political term and used as a label for British owned and ruled lands, and was almost unknown before then. --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, you are known for pushing the RoI's stance as if it were "most people"'s opinion. You know that Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and Malta are all considered quasi-"Italian". Does this make it really offensive, regardless of the opinions of those activists trying to change the perception of their uniqueness and in the purpose of stressing their independence? It's not very interesting to those who are not in "the cause". Your claim is also false. "British" does not imply ownership over all of Ireland by the UK government in this "modern time", the time in which we interpret the word. That's not even political with respect to Northern Ireland, for the style is "UK of GB and NI". Those are political concepts and refute your claim! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In the 16th century there was no such political entity as "Britain", so the only sort of ownership (if that's the right word) possible is a geographical one - Britain being the chief, i.e. largest island in the group, after which the rest derive their collective name. ðarkuncoll 12:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

TharkunColl, that is another modern interpretation. Recall that the Greeks did not call the main island Britain, but Albion. It was only in Tudor times that Anglo-Scottish diplomacy began to conceive of this name as primarily to the larger island, partly to undercut Scotch claims that Alba as a name belonged to them alone. For the purpose of merging the two monarchies (England and Ireland being a double-monarchy, much like User:HENRY V OF ENGLAND has been up to lately with The Dual-Monarchy of England and France), Ireland was implicity included with the Tudor dominions, but for the prejudice that Irish were barbarians, they decided to add Ireland onto Britain later, as if the place was so much different, being "Papist" rebels and an "inferior race" that needed to be converted first. The idea of disincluding Ireland from the Britons, is therefore recent. James was king of Great Britain, France and Ireland, rather than merely Great Britain and France, which would have been less insulting to the Irish, since there was no notable difference between England and Scotland in the title. The newfound "British" collaboration was given an incentive to union, by offering the Scots spoilage rights in Ireland, thus a nod to Edward Bruce's entrance to the island some time ago.

Unfortunately, the attitude that the "new British" used against the "old Irish", is what the "Irish" are using against their neighbours in this article. I'm not a Buddhist and don't believe in karma, but this attitude is plainly disruptive to our discussion. The reconstruction of Britishness done by the Anglo-Scottish union, is coming back to them, by Irish trying to disassociate themselves with the term British. This is what was innovated by Parliament and carried on by Irish government today. If only the machiavellian British government hadn't been formed the way it was and we would not be having these arguments or debates. I'm of North English heritage, which means an Anglo-Scotch union is offensive and traitorous. I'm sure the West English disagree with the Welch union, for much the same reason. Irish don't harbour this dissent alone, but the choice of fight in this case, is trivial and misses the point by a wide margin. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So in essence all you are really telling us here is that the Irish are British because the Greeks several thousand years ago said so. Nuclare (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You are putting implications into the terminology which were not originally there. How very revisionist and modernist. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference what was 'originally there'. The term was devised by those for whom it had no implications at all and its implications have revised as those for whom it did/does have implications have got hold of it. And you couldn't pay me a higher compliment then to say I am being modernist. Long may it continue. Nuclare (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you wish to promote the "[United Kingdom of] Great Britain and Ireland" duality, which was never important beforehand? It is a fact that Ireland did not have a significant presence in international affairs until the Tudors themselves sacrificed the independence of their Welsh principality homeland and raised the esteem of Ireland from a lordship into a kingdom, almost as if a gesture of equality for the Irish. It is plain that your motive is following on those heels of governmentalism. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The Picts in Caledonia painted themselves, they were a minority in both bigger islands. There were very few in Ireland, and were called Cruit. Purple ☏ 01:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm dead serious about toning down the political rhetoric, because all the attention given to it, accentuates differences between British islanders and other Europeans. Tacitus noted nothing but connections between the Britons and mainlanders, whatever their tribe. They were still grouped together, for the sake of convenience. All of these were categorized by the Romans as Gallic issues, for the ease of administration over similar geography and peoples. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

However by the time of Elizabeth a lot of water (not to mention blood) had flowed under many bridges ....--Snowded ^TALK 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Come again? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

John Dee references for being the first to coin the phrase "British Isles"

Can anyone provide me with a reference that backs up the claim that John Dee was the first to use the phrase "British Isles" or "Brytish Illes"? This reference sees John Dee use the phrase "Brytish Islands"... Also, the two references give in this article no longer link anywhere useful. I'm sure that there were references provided before or maybe I was imagining it. Tharky? Anyone? --HighKing (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How could anyone know whether he actually coined the phrase or is just credited with having first used it. I have my doubts whether he actually invented the term. Dee was an avid reader; and in possession of one of the largest private libraries in Europe. I would imagine he had read it somewhere. Tharky, over to you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he definitely used the words Brytish Ilandes but whether or not he actually used the word Isles/Iles I don't know. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Throckmorton used the term British Ile in 1560, so I would opine that Dee did not personally invent the term British Isles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If he did, you have yet to provide a reference that suports this. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OED 1577 J. DEE Arte Navigation 65 The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner. Also, this reference provides context Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting for an online reference if one exists. It may be that the book is not available online. Also the quote above seems ... fractured...?? --HighKing (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The fact there is even some doubt suggests about this Dee guy being the first person to use the term British Isles means we have a problem. Ive no idea who first thought of it or said it, but we shouldnt continue to misinform people with the statement on that article. Either Dees sentence should be removed from the intro or a slight rewording to say "among the first to use it". or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry where is the doubt? The WP:RS is the OED. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where is the OED reference? --hippo43 (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the OED picked the information up from an editor on Wikipedia (Tharky????) who wrote them a letter. Kinda becomes a circular reference. Would be best if we could get the original reference. I'll have a dig through the archives, maybe it was here.... But the current links go nowhere, and it would be good if there was an online reference somewhere. --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

A discussion took place here where Tharky discusses the fact that he believed that the older OED definition was wrong, then a conversation here (scroll down about a page) points out that the reference was in "Elizabeth as Astraea", but this is merely circumscribing what Dee is supposed to have said. And then a little further down again, Tharky says that OED have written back (although I stand corrected - he doesn't say that he wrote to them to point anything out). Still no references though... --HighKing (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Some might find this link useful - and although a lot of the content is restricted, if you search for "Brytish Iles" (with quotes), the search returns with "Sorry, this page's content is restricted". This suggests the term is contained within the book. If for example you search a for a term that would not be contained in the book - e.g. "elephant", the response is "Your search - "elephant" - did not match any documents. So it's still not a reference, but it seems to back up the argument for John Dee. --HighKing (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first English use of the terms Brytish Iles and Brytish Impire were by John Dee, ^{ref name= OEDBIOED Draft Revision Sept. 2008: British Isles, n.; ref} an advocate of imperial expansion;^{ref name = ODNB>R. Julian Roberts, ‘Dee, John (1527–1609)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, May 2006} Þjóðólfr (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a draft of the OED, which is referencing a book by John Dee. Using the OED in this case is a 2nd hand reference. Far better to somehow (anyone) reference the original work. There's a copy in the British Museum... --HighKing (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The OED has published Dee's quote verbatim. What could be added going to the British Museum? Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't get me wrong. There's no need to go to the museum. I assumed that because you were quoting a draft that the OED hadn't published it yet. If they have, OED is good. --HighKing (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why has somebody removed the year when John Dee allegedly used the term "British Isles"? That precision is necessary and is more preferable to some vague "late sixteenth century" type of information. Indeed, it seems an awful lot of writing about the history of this early modern neologism has been removed from this article. PS: "Many" and not just "some" still object to this term. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet "many" has still not yet been quantified or referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 19:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Many" was qualified and referenced a long time ago, so please stop trying to re-write that. It was entirely a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it and was removed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Shorthand names: Republic vs United Kingdom

Although long winded, why not use "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", in the same sentence as "Ireland"? Why call one of these by their government type, but not the other, Republic? One could consider Northern Ireland to be a kingdom (replacing Ireland), united with Great Britain, which is a union of England and Scotland, itself a union of England and Wales and Scotland. "Ireland" makes no note of the actual divisions between the island and the two political entities involved, so it is intentionally ambiguous and doesn't afford semantics. A double standard? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This has zero to do with improving the article and you just looking to start a stupid debate. Other editors please don't respond.MITH 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, when the shoe is on the other foot...feel free to dismiss? Whatever works for you! There is simply something absolutely incorrect in stating: "Great Britain and Ireland", when it died not some time ago, whereas both "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", with "Ireland" distinguished as a separate entity, does accommodate the present status quo and dosn't gloss over "Northern Ireland". Hmm and wow. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If you're arguing to use the full names, then it isn't "GB & NI", but the "UK of GB and NI". This is shorthanded to "UK". Nobody seems to have a problem with that. NI isn't a kingdom and never was, although was once part of one. In the correct context, "Ireland" can refer to the state. In other contexts it can refer to the island. In other contexts, it can refer to other things. I don't see any double standards.... --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

NI is still part of a kingdom. Mooretwin (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread what I said. Read it again. --HighKing (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nobody? You say you can use the same argument, only on behalf of your own prejudices, that there should be no single standard of use between them? If you get your own way in something like this, it's not so different than London retaining NI, rather than Dublin having all of Ireland. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 13:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Are you saying that there are people that object to shortening "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" to "United Kingdom"? Who? Any references? I've ignored the rest of your reply because quite frankly, I can't understand a word. Can you stick to one thing at a time? --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of neutral consistency I agree with! There is no official policy on short vs long names, but it is helpful to keep a unified standard when it comes to contentious subjects like this. Have you seen the light, HighKing? The Lord be praised if more good like this comes out of the discussions! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅ Supporting MIH --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

References for "Many" Irish objecting

It seems that there is now denial about this fact, and the fact that it was well referenced in this article. Key in "many" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles/References. You will also find much more evidence of Irish objections to this term. "Many" was removed because it wasn't liked by certain British wikipedians. It was, however, always well referenced. Just for the record. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Many" was removed because it's meaningless; are you talking 10s, 100s, 1000s or millions? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To be replaced by the even more meaningless "there are objections." Nuclare (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen this debate before. I'm not too bothered either way to be honest, but if a dozen good references said that "many Irish object to the term" can it not be used? I've heard it said it can't because "many" is a weasly word. Is many really a meaningless word? I always thought it meant, erm, a lot! Or to be more precise, an indefinite large number. Should a reference from a reputable source be dismissed so easily because someone thinks the word "many" is meaningless? Jack forbes (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jack F. If a source says "many", it's "many". If the sources say "a few", it's "a few". If they say "six" etc... --hippo43 (talk) 00:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Jack. Until there's a door-to-door survey throughout the length and breadth of Ireland to obtain precise figures of those who do object to the term, the word many will have to suffice.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)