Talk:British Isles/Archive 30

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

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

→

No contrived wording: let's use the simplest form of words

The intro appears to be drafted deliberately to avoid using the term Republic of IReland (presumably to appease those with an irrational fear of said term). It says: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland." To do this, the actual names used by Wikipedia have to be disguised with piping. Why can't it just use the simplest form of words: "There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland."? High King simply states "In this case, the correct names should be used" - Why? And what is "incorrect" about using UK and ROI? Mooretwin (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Hogh King.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why you agree with him? Mooretwin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of spoiling Vintagekits fun, a read of the first sentence of Republic of Ireland will reveal that the correct, official, name of that state is "Ireland". "Republic of Ireland" is an unofficial form used by people who don't want to confuse the island of Ireland with the state Ireland. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not "unofficial": it's provided as the "official" description of that state by its own law. It's also the name used for said state in Wikipedia. Why should it not be used in this sentence? Mooretwin (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, where we're introducing the topic, I think the correct names should be used. Certainly no problem including a footnote referring to RoI being the official description, though. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Mooretwin (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with the current wording, just saying Ireland is fine as the sentence makes clear its talking about two sovereign states and the whole of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is linked which keeps it clearly seperate from Ireland. If we shortened it down to just United Kingdom then it will simply lead to more confusion about the status of Ireland. No need for any change in this case, i think the first paragraph is good and clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Geography ≠ Culture

I've been looking at a few geography articles recently such as Iberian Peninsula, Balkans and the Caribbean. One thing that they differ greatly on is that they do not have a culture section and concentrate solely on the geography. Should the British Isles article not do the same? The geography section for the page is pretty small, yet further down the page it is deemed necessary to say things like "Pubs and beer are an important part of social life in all parts of the British Isles" and how the islands are all involved in the Six Nations and the like. It seems like pretty poor content and borderline POV for something which is meant to be a geography article about a group of islands. Shouldn't this section be removed and some proper geography content be put in instead?MITH 21:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be nothing but about physical geography, climate, pollution, etc. Why not simply link to the included polities, which inhabit this general area? I would greatly support any and all negation of political points of view attached to this term, as that issue is already covered in a separate article, much like the social composition already is. Perhaps instead of talking about people, there can be animals and plants notable here? Obviously, this is less sensitive. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the article is fine as it is, at least in terms of the topics covered. It's not "poor content" it's relevant content. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a geography article no? How is the content related to geography in any way? Why does no other geography article have similar content to this?MITH 22:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct - no. It's an article about the British Isles, which happens to be a geographic entity, but that doesn't exclude the material that is present in the article. Have you never heard of Human Geography? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So Sports are human geography topics now are they? Are magazines and newspapers geography too?MITH 22:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear what you want - an emaciated article as a first step towards complete removal, because of your objection to the use of "British Isles" here, and everywhere else. Your view is, however, a minority view. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it. He seems to be working with the opposition. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Catterick. It's poor form on your part MidnightBlueMan to ignore my question and then go on a petty attack about how its all politically motivated because I'm an Irish editor. 95% of your edits are British Isles related so I doubt I'm the one with a POV to push. I am being completely neutral here. I am looking to expand the article through including more geographical fact but removing the shared magazines and football teams rubbish down the bottom. It's called improving the article.MITH 22:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've stated enough about "Irish" opposition to the use of the term "British" by English and Scottish, or Welsh and Cornish. I hope you, MITH, don't feel it is necessary to describe MidnightBlueMan's British Isles interest. I think that he truly is bewildered at the movement to strip the geographical meaning behind the term, even if he doesn't care how the political implications may affect you. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and add geographical fact, but don't remove useful content. Catterick wants to add stuff about animals. OK, how about putting something in about Deer in the British Isles? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually going to decline the hard work. I simply noted an unfortunate and quaint controversy that I wished to defuse somehow, which is why most of my edits have been on the Talk. I offer alternative ways of looking at an issue, rather than the simple polarities which have afflicted what should be NPOV articles. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How is the content useful to a geography article when the content has nothing to with geography? Ecology and wildlife is very much geography related, Cricket and the availability of the Irish times is not.MITH 22:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the article on Ireland talks about culture and history too. British Isles is a geographical term, but the article on Europe mentions human history and culture too so i dont see why the basics cant be covered on this article where it makes sense. Obviously only dealing with matters that apply to both the Britain and Ireland, not just something about the UK which doesnt belong on this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately BW, there are too many articles which simply aggregate what other articles presently cover. This causes many people to become deletionist, which is an attitude I wish was softened in some, but that takes effort on the part of editors, to prevent it from happening. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Geographical regions most certainly have a history and a culture, and to not describe these would be remiss - especially since articles on other geographical regions, such as Ireland, happily do so. And in any case, geography includes human geography, as well as physical geography. ðarkun coll 11:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thark, where does this article end and another begin, in covering the same material? Consider how easily the same problems here spread to the BE page. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This article should only cover the basics of shared history of the British Isles, it certainly shouldnt go over board and i have no problem with certain content being removed, but i see no problem with going into the basics like on Europe or Ireland or Taiwan or China which are not just about the history / culture of sovereign states. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

China is not a geography article it is about the Chinese civilization. The same could be said about Ireland too. That is not a good article to copy, nothing else is like it on Wikipedia. Europe does not have a culture section it merely has a link to it. There is zero detail on the page. I could link dozens of other geography articles which also do not have culture sections. Including human geography is no problem and should be encouraged but discussing joint football teams and the availability of magazines is unnecessary POV. British Isles is a geography article.MITH 11:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry China wasnt a good example although its intro first says its about a "cultural region". Taiwan and Ireland are both about islands which are a geographical location but they do mention culture and history. Im not agreeing or disagree about if certain sentences or perhaps even entire sections should remain in the article or be removed, im open minded on that. All im saying is just because this is about a location doesnt mean we cant mention human activity and history. Cultural trends seems reasonable aslong as its not just a huge amount about one, and only talks of shared culture. You say theres no "culture section" on the Europe article, but there are a few sentences and clearly it justifies an entire article, is there one on Culture of the British Isles?, if there isnt then why cant there be a section here? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well then, perhaps this page should follow the path of least resistance and do as others do, save for the tendentious and revisionist editing. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest moving most of the content from Alternative names and descriptions to the naming dispute and terminology articles. In the section we just need the basics about how there are some alternative names. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If no good reason is given to why the trimming isn't beneficial to the article then I shall reinstate the text. It's down to you LevenBoy.MITH 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Put your proposals here. I'm not saying they're wrong; your grammar was better for starters, but you must get agreement for what, at this article anyway, constitute big changes. LevenBoy (talk) 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the text Do you see anyone above who explicitly said no to the trimming of the section? I don't, but I see editors saying the section has to stay but it can be tidied up. I did that and you reverted it with no reason other than the 'no consensus' excuse (which is not true). You reverted - what reason is the edit not good? Please discuss your opinions.MITH 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict 1) From my Talk page - You've got it the wrong way round. For controversial articles you put your suggestions to Talk first. It's not good enough to open a debate about a general idea and then claim your detailed changes have agreement. "Tidied" does not mean wholesale removal of material, which seems to be the case here. LevenBoy (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion was started 4 days ago, not when you decided to turn up here. You are new to the discussion so please discuss your reasons for disagreeing with the text.MITH 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)Okay, I haven't got time to go through it in detail now, but one point - you removed a section on the renaming of the British Lions. I think the detail in that section is especially relevant to this article, so perhaps we could have something about that in the article. Yes, by all means tidy it up, but I think you've deleted all mention of it. LevenBoy (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I have no problem with the This team was formerly known as The British Isles or colloquially as "The British Lions", but was renamed as "The British and Irish Lions" in 2001 sentence being kept.MITH 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If any other editors have objections with my edit, please make yourself heard here, otherwise I will change the text with LevenBoys recommendation also acknowledged.MITH 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

GET RID of this title

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not the place for a general political discussion or argument. Editors who wish to see this article deleted may nominate it at WP:AFD, though such a nomination would surely be viewed as disruptive. This page is a suitable venue for a polite discussion of whether British Isles should (for example) become a disambiguation page linking to separate geographical/political articles, but I'm not seeing any sign of such a discussion here. Any editor wishing to take part in a polite constructive discussion would be well advised to start a new thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is a free, independent country, free of British rule. The term "British Isles" is an insult to Ireland, and is becoming less frequently used. This article should be renamed to a fairer title, such as "UK and Ireland", or else deleted if a new name can't be found.--FF3000 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles is only an insult to those who choose to be insulted by it. The phrase predates the British state and exists because the largest island in the group is called Britain. See Gran Canaria and the Canary Islands for example. ðarkun coll 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't. How could it if John Dee was the man to coin the phrase? --HighKing (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The British state was not formed until 1707 or if we look at it as when the union of the crowns took place the early 17th century. The intro says Dee came up with the phrase in the late 16th century, so very clearly he came up with it before the British state was formed. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bah - what tosh. There never was an official state called the "British State", so what we're talking about is the meaning of "British" in the context of usage of the time. In that respect, the British state was represented by the British monarch, and in 1604, King James VI and I was proclaimed "King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the etc". Also, the use of "Britain" and "Great Britain" was proposed in 1548 as the title for the marraige planned between the Prince of Wales and the infact Queen Mary. --HighKing (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm Tharkun said British Isles "predates the British state", you said no it doesnt. The British state (as in a country) did not exist until 1707, but i even mentioned the union of the crowns in the early 17th century. That is still AFTER dee invented the term in the late 16th century according to the intro. So it clearly does predate any form of British State. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm yourself. What you and Tharky say only makes sense if you equate the "British state" with the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. That's unsubstantied rubbish - feel free to back it up with some actual research please. There have been claims of British states before the formation of the UK, which I've outlined above. --HighKing (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The British Isles is a location, this has nothing to do with British rule. Please find somewhere else to rant Footyfanatic. The Irish Sea is not controlled by Ireland and people do not care about its name. This is an encyclopedia, just because you dont like something doesnt mean we can ignore it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The term ceased to have meaning back in 1922. But old maps still hang around those old dusty libraries, and some think they still have relevance. The term is seldom used in Ireland. Most international organisations avoid the term, as they would the term Belgium Congo, or French Africa. Governments avoid using the term too. ''Tfz'' (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If the term "ceased to have meaning in 1922", then how come everyone still understands it? It was never the name of a state or any political entity at all, and was always - and still is - the name of a geographical region. ðarkun coll 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Certain forces in Ireland may seek the removal of terms they dont like but it is used everyday here in the United Kingdom. The BBC which is a pretty politically correct organisation still uses the term dozens of times a day. Plenty of sources can be found of other international organisations using the term today aswell. This idea that British Isles ceased to have meaning in 1922 is very original and amusing, do you have any sources for such a stupid claim? Why the hell did an Irish map publisher only stop using it a year or two ago (but continues to use the term in British textbooks) BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"A little learning is a dangerous thing" A. Pope. Because most of that so-called map-maker's maps were being sold in the UK. Traditionally schools in Ireland used Elanor Butler's "Irish Student Atlas", by the "Educational Company of Ireland Limited", and it never ever mentions the term BI. Her relevant page is called "Ireland, Great Britain, and the North Sea". ''Tfz'' (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Beeb are particularly PC at all. British Isles is not politically correct (if there's a British Isles naming dispute should it be used?). They also call the country I'm from the Irish Republic which is also quite incorrect. The use of British Isles by the British media does not make it ok for everyone to use. Sure the British media call the Netherlands "Holland" all of time and go out of there way to do so, so British use of terms is not infallible. I do however accept BI is a term in existence and I'm not going to complain about it too much, but you can't say that its only a small majority of Irish people who don't use it while the rest of the world do without problem. That is just not true. This article may be moved someday but at the moment the term is more common then any direct alternative.MITH 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If at some point in the future British Isles is condemned to the history books for what ever reason there may still be justification for this article to remain at its current location. Every single alternative name ive seen does not define what the British Isles is. "Britain and Ireland" as mentioned in the current intro doesnt include everything the British Isles does, thats simply two islands Britain and Ireland. However if sources back up the fact that British Isles is no longer used and has been replaced by something else ofcourse a name change may be needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

BW I agree the term is a valid one, and that it is used correctly as a geographical term. However you keep saying that the BBC uses it dozens of time a day. I've been listening out, and I haven't heard it in the last week. --Snowded ^TALK 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well i should of said dozens of times a week rather than a day, they dont always do that many weather forecasts but ive certainly heard it 3 times over the past few days on the BBC News channel weather forecast, but i dont watch BBC 1 weather. Every time i hear the British Isles used i think of this place and smile. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can vouch for BW regarding the weather forecast but as far as I can see, the presenters are using the term incorrectly. They totally ignore the RoI, no symbols across across it and start with NI. Not sure about written context of the use of the term by BBC but I'll check. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The BBC Manual of Style which is a source for something in this article and has been mentioned before states it includes the Republic of Ireland, not sure if they are using it incorrectly though, they just focus on the part of the map which is the United Kingdom. If they showed a map of Europe with just symbols on parts of the UK, it would still be a map of Europe. Its ashame Ireland wasnt the first place in the British Isles to get an outbreak of swine flu, would of been interesting to see how the different media organisations here reported that. I didnt mean that in a nasty way, dont want people accusing me of wanting a virus to spread in Ireland :\ lolBritishWatcher (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Watch the weather forecast on BBC Breakfast. Main weatherwoman Carol Kirkwood uses the words all the time; she did so this morning. Also, have a look here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I said to myself, "bet she's Scottish" or IoM. Lo and behold! I was correct! ''Tfz'' (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I buy the weather, generally does not respect national boundaries, clearly geographical and most editors wouldn't disagree with that. If you find the BBC using it politically then I would be interested. Or RTE (in any context) --Snowded ^TALK 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

British Isles is always a geographical term so i dont see how it can be used in another way. They use British Isles alot http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/uk/05/born_abroad/html/overview.stm here when talking about where people who live in the UK were born and have the definition of British Isles at the bottom of the page. Ive also found this (not sure if its been mentioned before in the British Isles debate) http://publications.europa.eu/code/pdf/370000en.htm a European Union style guide which defines the British Isles.

Its interesting to note they state very clearly do not use Republic of Ireland or Irish Republic, but they dont say do not use British Isles, the fact they mention it shows they recognize the description.

Hmm ive just seen this BBC article for the first time from 1999 about British Isles being "Back on the political map", dont know if you have seen it before, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/570395.stm Seems a very strange article and certainly not all accurate. lol @ "But ultimately devolution and the Council of Isles will help undermine the secessionist tendencies that generate strong feelings in places such as Northern Ireland and Scotland." Amazing how much changes over a decade :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Midnight, the map you point to is titled United Kingdom. Bill Reid | (talk) 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's on the drop down menu, Bill. Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Bills point still stands. The BBC are using the term British Isles incorrectly. Note their is no mention of Dublin on the BI map. Also, if they showed a map of Europe with only UK symbols would they call it UK weather or European? Jack forbes (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

They would be doing the UK weather but the map would still be a map of Europe or the British Isles. The BBC is the UKs public service broadcaster, its understandable that they only focus on parts of the UK. To say "Rain is passing across the British Isles" they dont have to put symbols for the Republic of Ireland too. They only show about a dozen British cities, that doesnt mean the rest are not part of the British Isles. The BBC manual of Style explains what British Isles means, i find it hard to believe all of their weather editors and presenters are making mistakes. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly they only seem to forecast for the UK as well ....--Snowded ^TALK 17:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably because "British Isles" is a subjective term, meaning different concepts to different people. To some, it's a defunct term, to others, it does not include Ireland, and to just about everyone else, 'the who?'. ''Tfz'' (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And to many people and organisations the British Isles is a geographical location as explained in the first paragraph of the introduction and backed up by an endless supply of sources. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite aware that BBC use the term "British Isles", but to still have Ireland under the term "British" is insulting as it gives an impression that Ireland is still under British rule. Most British people didn't learn about the cruelty of Britain towards Ireland in the past, and the millions of lives that were lost in the 400-year struggle for freedom. I know that English people are nice, friendly people nowadays, but in the past they were extremely greedy for more and more land. Therefore to include Ireland as part of the British Isles weakens its' own individual sense of identity.--FF3000 (talk) 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article shall remain. As for the content of this article? that's up to you folk. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have more consideration for Irish people please. It is an unofficial, undemocractic, unfair name towards Ireland. The title should most certainly be changed.--FF3000 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be technical, if Wikipedia was democratic it wouldn't be an issue as the number of people for British Isles seem to outnumber those that aren't. And the number of people in the world that appear to use it outnumber those who are against it. Thankfully however Wikipedia is not a democracy, we work off consensus and verification. Canterbury Tail talk 00:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

An article title won't be changed, based on its hurting somebody's feelings. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Your so hard hearted GoodDay. Jack forbes (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't say Irish people's feelings are being hurt on this, but most of the article is a pov-fork for a quaint nationalism, of sorts. It took 7 years for the article to allow an alternative term to be even printed on the article page. Almost certainly, that is some modicum of progress. Any article on an alternative name is usually ferociously fought against, 'battlefield style without the guns'. Books could be written on this. Arbcom will have to take hold of this someday, as it really is showing Wikipedia to be very amateurish, and unprofessional! ''Tfz'' (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I prefer deal making. If this article title is changed? then Republic of Ireland must remain. If this article title is kept? then move RoI to Ireland (republic) (for example). GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my feelings. The British can be proud for lying what practically is a territorial claim on our country, but I refuse to accept such stupidity.--FF3000 (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it has nothing to do with feelings, or the title RoI for that matter, it's a stand-alone problem here on Wikipedia. An encyclopedia is about educating people about things and events, and Wikipedia is not living up to that ideal in this case. ''Tfz'' (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC).

As much as I have a lot of sympathy for your view, until another term becomes more popular, and it may well do, the article name is likely to remain as it is. Jack forbes (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

In agreement, there just hasn't been an alternative term to rival the BI. GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. More popular where? In Britain? Yeah, that sums it up! ''Tfz'' (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

People can pipe-link this article & can change the content. But, the title shall remain. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I cannot believe this is even being discussed. Like it or not, British Isles is a term that is used in the English language. Encarta and Britannica both have articles on it. The BBC uses it. Most of the British press use it. Historians and climatologists have written books on it [1] [2]. The folks in Ireland that want it erased from the language have to use it to complain about it or to tell others what not to say or write. If the day comes that the British and whoever else stop using it, there will still need to be an article on it because it was such a commonly used term and cannot be erased from books and newspapers published prior to that day, much like the extinct term Mare Nostrum, used by the Romans and then revived by the Italian Fascists. In short, it is utterly preposterous to suggest this article should be renamed. Stop trying to use Wikipedia to right WP:GREATWRONGS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Because the term falsely demonstrates ownership of Ireland by the British. Not only is it totally wrong, it is also a deep insult to one's neighbours, to claim their domain. Those articles were most likely written by people from Britain, and there are 70,000,000. A shortage of articles or citations will never be your problem, it's amazing that there are so few! ''Tfz'' (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be an article here on the British Isles, because it is a term which is in widespread use, describing a concept ("the isles") which is in widespread use. That is changing to some extent, for reasons which are fully understandable, but any process of a term coming into gradual disuse is a lengthy one, and the process in this case is incomplete - the term is (still) in use, internationally, and though contentious to some is seen as neutral by others. (Even historic terms like South Britain deserve articles here.) WP does not "educate" in the sense of leading opinion in a particular direction, it describes the world as it is, and is educational by virtue of the fact that it informs. The only argument here is on how the term should be described - does it mean a certain thing, neutrally (in my view, no), or is it a term used to describe that thing (in my view, yes). Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes lets stop this nonsense with a few wishing to change the term that is used by the whole world either in English, or translated from English. Wikipedia reflects the real world - things happen and get recorded in WP, not the other way round. Editors can't change the names of archepelogos, countries, rivers etc, it is their job to hopefully write about them, not this pointless discussions on whether they will get the name of British Isles article changed to something else. The only argument is for when the term is used and not used. --Bill Reid | (talk) 08:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

And why is an article named Britain and Ireland so strongly resisted, if you look to the archives, it almost caused a war on WP. Wikipedia does not deal in facts, Wikipedia, by its nature, deals in pov most of the time, and that's another aspect of the project. ''Tfz'' (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nicely put, Bill. Our task here as editors is to act as recorders of established facts, not revisionists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Nicely put, Bill. Our task here as editors is to act as recorders of established facts, not revisionists." Very nicely and succinctly put, and agree 100% with that sentiment. That the term is hardly used in Ireland is a fact. That some editors get highly offended when it's pointed out that the term is generally avoided in Ireland is another fact. That the term is offensive to some people, is another fact. There are many facts. ''Tfz'' (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

To the OP: Is the title used in the real world, today? Yes, and it still appears to be the most common name. In that case, read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and, well, get over your dislike of the term. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. To those who've responded to the OP and each other - please see the WP:NOTFORUM template at the top of the page. Another acre of wasted kilobytes later and nothing has been said that serves to improve the article... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Bill and Bastun. It is a fact that "British Isles" is a term that is used. The article should explain what it is. For me, the problem isn't the term, but from usage - and that is why WP:BISLES was set up. After WT:IECOLL reaches a conclusion (any day/week/month now), I believe we'll find that we can apply the same thinking and resources into putting guidelines in place for "British Isles" too. But nobody is getting rid of the term. --HighKing (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"Term is hardly used in Ireland" - mentioned in article (or words to that effect). "Some editors highly offended.." - your opinion, not a fact. "The term is offensive to some people" - the term is not offensive to anyone; some people don't like it, but it's not the sort of thing that anyone would find "offensive". Look up offensive in a dictionary. Here's a typical definition repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting. Reasonable people, and I stress reasonable, would not put British Isles in that category. LevenBoy (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

6,000,000 Irish people perished at the hands of "British", and the term BI is not "repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting"? That says it. ''Tfz'' (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have been dreaming. You'll laugh at this, but I had this dream that the year was now 2009, but then I woke up with a start, and reading the most recent comments on Ye Olde Wikipediae, British IIles olde Talk page I realised I was living in 1790. LevenBoy (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poll on name of article at Talk:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands

For those that are interested, please take a look at the discussions on the Talk page and if inclined, please register your opinion/!vote. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Britannia Insulae ... AD 1559 Copper-Engraving of "British Isles"

Just in case ...

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1069881640&searchurl=tn%3Dinsulae%2Bbritannia%26x%3D73%26y%3D7

Britannia insula quae duo regna continent Angliam et Scotiam cum Hibernia adiacente ("The British Isles, comprising two kingdoms, England and Scotland, with Ireland adjacent")Lily, George (cartographer, d. 1559) and "I.H.S." (engraver)

US$ 45000.00

THE FIRST COPPER-PLATE MAP OF THE BRITISH ISLES BASED ON CONTEMPORARY KNOWLEDGE Copperplate engraving: 193/8" x 137/8" trimmed with original extended margins References: R.V. Tooley, "Maps in Italian Atlases of the Sixteenth Century," Imago Mundi 3 (1939), n. 269; Lloyd Arnold Brown, The World Encompassed, exh. cat. (Baltimore, 1952), n. 163; Rodney W. Shirley, Early Printed Maps of the British Isles: A Bibliography 1477-1650 (Somerset, England, 1980), n. 60. George Lily, a religious exile from England living in Rome, was the author of the earliest separately published map to show the British Isles as a whole. Lily's map, first issued in Rome in 1546, derived the shape of England and Wales from Sebastian Münster's map of 1540 and also perhaps from a manuscript produced around 1535 known as the Cotton map, which is now in the British Library. Lily, however, included many more place names and topographical features than either model. Rodney Shirley, the great authority on maps of Great Britain, wrote that "the Lily map is one of the finest engravings of the first part of the 16th century and rightly deserves the accord which has been given to it. There are several earlier versions of the British Isles in Ptolemaic atlases but none of these approaches the Lily map in originality, clarity, or elegance." Lily was an English Catholic who, as part of the entourage of Reginald Cardinal Pole, was banished from England in 1543 during the aftermath of Henry VIII's split with the papacy. Lily established himself in Rome, working as an editor of maps in collaboration with the prominent publisher Michele Tramezzini. Lily signed his work with a monogrammed 'GLA' (Georgius Lilius Anglus). "Britanniae Insulae," although unsigned, may also have been engraved by Beatrizet, and was probably published by Tramezzini. Lily's original issue of 1546 is of great rarity. The present map is a fine example of the second issue, published a decade later and also quite scarce. It is true to the original, although the British Isles are oriented with north at top (in contrast to the 1546 orientation with north at left), in the more familiar configuration that has become standard in modern times. The depiction of Great Britain is geographically advanced, while Ireland is represented with noticeably less definition. The identity of the publisher and engraver is unknown, and the appearance of the creator's mark, I.H.S., at the lower right corner, is the only clue as to its author. This example of the rare second issue of Lily's map is in very good condition and represents an exceptionally important work in the early history of British Isles cartography.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But but but... John Dee isn't mentioned. OMG how can it be authentic?!?!?!

On a serious note, nice find - nothing like a piece of incontrovertible primary evidence to silence the POV-pushers. Do you have a higher-resolution version? Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

How ironic that, not for the first time, the "POV-pushers" are you and your fellow "British Isles" revisionists, User:Wiki-Ed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

On the basis of my insecure and unused-for-40-years knowledge of Latin, I'd say that "Britannia insula" does not mean "British Isles" at all, it means "island of Britain". The clincher is the reference to "continet [not "continent"] Angliam et Scotiam cum Hibernia adiacente", which I'd suggest means "it contains England and Scotland with Ireland adjacent" - that is, Hibernia is not a part of Britannia. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This fits in with Nicholas Throckmorton's use of Isle of Britain, not British Isles in 1560. Obviously Ireland was not considered a part of Britain.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ireland is not part of Britain, and nobody has ever said it was. I don't know why you keep bringing Throckmorton's reference to the Isle of Britain up - he wasn't talking about the British Isles, therefore the phrase he used is irrelevant. ðarkun coll 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, I shall not mention Nicholas Throckmorton and his reference again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...

Britannia insula quae duo regna continent Angliam et Scotiam cum Hibernia adiacente ("The British Isles, comprising two kingdoms, England and Scotland, with Ireland adjacent")Lily, George (cartographer, d. 1559) and "I.H.S." (engraver)

US$ 45000.00

("The British Isles, comprising two kingdoms, England and Scotland, with Ireland adjacent")

Additionally ...

(i). Antilles Group

Greater Antilles

Lesser Antilles

(ii). Britannia Group

Great Britain

Little Britain

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the bookseller's translation appears to be incorrect, and therefore your interpretation is irrelevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, it's your interpretation that's irrelevant because it's OR. I could insert my own interpretation of the sentence which - obviously - would differ from yours. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out below, insula is single ("island"), not plural (insulae).[3] Translations of common words are not "interpretations". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, I have just translated the Latin. "Britannia insula quae duo regna continent Angliam et Scotiam cum Hibernia adiacente ("The British Islands, comprising two kingdoms, England and Scotland, with Ireland adjacent")Lily, George (cartographer, d. 1559) and 'I.H.S' (engraver)". Tfz 19:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually would that translate as "The British islands" not "The British Islands"? Canterbury Tail talk 19:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Britannia insula quae duo regna continent Angliam et Scotiam cum Hibernia adiacente ("Britannia, Island, comprising two kingdoms, England and Scotland, with Ireland adjacent")Lily, George (cartographer, d. 1559) and 'I.H.S' (engraver)". Revision, insulae is the plural of course, and insula is capatalised on map heading. Tfz 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another own goal above, Armchair; well done (comforting to see the more educated contributors at least knew insula was singular). "British Isles" is at best, at very very best, a late sixteenth-century neologism that fits in with rising English claims over Ireland. "British Isles" was not even as common as "Britain and Ireland" for, at least, most of the seventeenth century. A read of Francis Bacon's contemporary account of the British plantations in Ireland, Certain considerations touching the Plantation in Ireland (1606), reveals he never once used the phrase "British Isles" but frequently used Britain and Ireland, etc: http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/E600001-001/index.html. There is an enormous amount of revision revolving around this term, particularly concerning its use as a terminological construct to advance the political claims of the nascent identity called Britishness. PS: I see you have just made another own goal below. I'm impressed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Hell ... you people drive me nuts...

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

NOTES from LILY'S MAP of GREAT BRITAIN, 1546

These notes are taken from poor reproductions of the map of Britanniae ie the British Isles, by George Lily, Rome, 1546, and a number of derivative editions in the 16th century. The reproductions are given in:-  
Shirley, Rodney W: 1991 (revised edn): Early Printed Map of the British Isles: Antique Atlas:: ISBN 0 9514914 2 3 

map type: HantsMap & Lily 1546 

The notes are particularly biased towards Hampshire interest.  
This map is the first map of the British Isles issued as a single sheet. It was printed from two copper plates; its size is wxh = 535x745mm. George Lily was an english catholic exiled in Rome at the papal court. R W Shirley gives a concise note of the possible sources for the map's content.

MAP FEATURES title cartouche strapwork cartouche coat of arms

Printed upper right is a strapwork title cartouche:-

BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO Remember that the islands are not one nation at this date. Above the cartouche are two coats of arms: the lions of England quartered with the three fleur de lys of France; and the lion of Scotland in its double tressure. There is a decorative tudor rose above the cartouche.

Britanniae Insulae

BRITISH .... bloody ... ISLES.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you carrying on about? GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. I am trying to illustrate that this Copper-Plate Map from A.D. 1546 uses the term British Isles. Take care eh, Don. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you, my friend. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Good hearing from you aswell, bud. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

AVDL, please read the map that you yourself have uploaded. It states, clear as daylight, in the top left corner, BRITANNIA INSULA, not Britanniae Insulae. That means "island of Britain", not "British Isles" (or "islands"). You are wrong, and the seller of the map is wrong. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are doing an abysmal job of it, ArmchairVexillologist. "Britanniae Insulae" in your chosen extract clearly referred to the minor islands around Britain, as the words 'cum Hibernia adiacente' (with Ireland adjacent) make very clear. Now, please, Armchair. Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just noticed that User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! edited the Latin to make it plural. Unbelievable shenanigans going on here just to propagate the idea of a "British Isles" covering Ireland. Thank you, User:Ghmyrtle. Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This map is a massive red herring. It says Britannia insula - island of Britain - so it cannot be used as evidence for either the existence or non-existence of the term British Isles. It simply doesn't mention them. However, the mapmaker Abraham Ortelius certainly does in 1570, in his Angliae, Scotiae et Hiberniae, sive Britannicar. insularum descriptio. ðarkun coll 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

First Edition (Copper Plate) A.D. 1546 says Britanniae Insulae

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

Second Edition (Copper Plate) A.D. 1559 makes a "boo-boo" ... forgets to pluralise Insula to Insulae ...

(Feels "LIfe of Brian" Monty Python moment coming on!)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Britain is to Avalon ... as Little Britain is to Hibernia

Ahem ...

Great Britain is to Avalon

Little Britain is to Hibernia

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop.—eric 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

From "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (2007)

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C

The relavent passage ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

Ahem, to re-illustrate...

Megale Britannia (Great Britain) is to Alvion

Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) is to Hivernia

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is disturbing, and disruptive, behaviour. Could you please copy all of the above, save it to your WORD document, date it, and come back and look at it when you grow up. Hopefully you will learn how to spell words like relevant along the way. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

NOTES from LILY'S MAP of GREAT BRITAIN, 1546

NOTES from LILY'S MAP of GREAT BRITAIN, 1546

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

These notes are taken from poor reproductions of the map of Britanniae ie the British Isles, by George Lily, Rome, 1546, and a number of derivative editions in the 16th century. The reproductions are given in:- Shirley, Rodney W: 1991 (revised edn): Early Printed Map of the British Isles: Antique Atlas:: ISBN 0 9514914 2 3

map type: HantsMap & Lily 1546

The notes are particularly biased towards Hampshire interest. This map is the first map of the British Isles issued as a single sheet. It was printed from two copper plates; its size is wxh = 535x745mm. George Lily was an english catholic exiled in Rome at the papal court. R W Shirley gives a concise note of the possible sources for the map's content.

MAP FEATURES title cartouche strapwork cartouche coat of arms Printed upper right is a strapwork title cartouche:-

BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO Remember that the islands are not one nation at this date. Above the cartouche are two coats of arms: the lions of England quartered with the three fleur de lys of France; and the lion of Scotland in its double tressure. There is a decorative tudor rose above the cartouche.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

But if that's true, then BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO

would translate to BRITANNIAE ISLANDS etc etc etc ........... ...... I'm getting a feeling of OR here, as quite obviously the text does not refer to "isles". Tfz 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Latin: Insulae

French: Îles

German: Insels

English: Islands has identical meaning to Isles.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have studied Latin, and forget far more than I can remember. But I clearly remember this, Insulae = Islands. Tfz 23:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Tfz ...

What is the difference between Islands and Isles in A.D. 1546?

Answer ... NOTHING.

British Isles meant British Islands back then ... in other words [insult deleted] wordsmithing.ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives, you have quite obviously lost it, and it's you who is word-smithing. Tfz 00:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!. It's an absolute pleasure to be one of the 'stupid pin-headed Irish' in the circumstances. Dunlavin Green (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmChair, you have just come off a one month ban for disruptive and abusive behaviour. You were also warned that the next ban might be permanent. I strongly recommend you delete and apologise for the above comment. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's advice, Armchair. I find your anti-Irish comments offensive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology to Jeanne Boleyn (talk)

To Jeanne,

I am sorry for my anti-Republican Irish slur. I got very upset, and said some inexcusable things. Your opinion of me, means quite alot to me. My ancestors were Loyalists from the County of Antrim (my small Irish link).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22County+of+Antrim%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g1

Barney Gumble "Thankfully rare. Never seen except when pissed."

(pissed ... i.e., really angry)

Take care, your friend ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the way how you've all get offended by this. I didn't see any of you complaining when Troll777 was posting inflamatory and offensive comments. Perhaps you should go about getting those comment removed first. User:Snowded should perhaps bear that would-be administrators need to be objective. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't offended Wiki-Ed, just trying to give ArmChair some advise (and deliberately not reporting him). I can't see Troll777 but I've only been on wikipedia intermittently for the past week so I may have missed it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree, should not be encouraged, and will only get Armchair blocked again. Tfz 01:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll777? Now who could be the subject of this breach of WP:NPA I wonder? Sarah777 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good God, you weren't talking about Sarah were you Wiki-Ed? --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Should Megale Britannia (Great Britain) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) be referenced in the Main Article British Isles ?

From "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (2007)

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C

The relevant passage ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

Ahem, to re-illustrate...

Megale Britannia (Great Britain) is to Alvion

Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) is to Hivernia

Well ... should it?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never given it any thought. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Please give it some thought, and let me know your opinion. Your opinion means a great to me (just like Jeanne Boleyn's). By-the-way, I put alot of hard work and study into digging out the referenced terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia).

Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've sorta fell behind on the goings on at this article. What are you trying to add or delete from the article? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay.

I would like to add a few lines of text ... about the referenced terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia) to the Main Article British Isles.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

I would like to know if you would be for-or-against this.

Take care eh, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I don't see how it adds anything to the article. PS: I always take care. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. In my opinion, the inclusion of a "few-lines-of-text" referencing the terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia) would show that long before the brew-hah-hah over the Partition of the Island of Ireland the term British Isles was just a geographical term.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add it, go ahead. I've no strong feelings about it, either way. GoodDay (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy GoodDay. Thank your for the consul. I appreciate it alot. I'll wait a few days, and then add something.

Claudius Ptolemaeus (born A.D. 90) used the geographic terms of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) (i.e, Alvion) and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) (i.e., Hivernia). The Island of Hibernia article bears this out as well.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

When Armchair added the item this morning I moved it to the history section which was accepted. However the translation as British Isles has not been agreed above. I therefore put a neutral phrase in instead. ArmChair has now reverted twice and is not seeking consensus so I have placed a tag on the section and suggested a self-revert pending discussion here. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

Insulae in English means Islands or Isles.

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

The meaning (i.e., the geographic context) of British Islands or British Isles is the same.

I am willing to risk a permanent ban over this.

Now ... Snowded contests this ... but has not yet addressed why ...

Anyone else?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the above exchanges you will see that not all editors agreed with your translation. The form of words I used was neutral. I'm not sure to be honest anything should be added at all, but decided modifying the text was more collegiate. My latin is too old to argue the case one way or another, I leave that to others. However if the translation is ambiguous then best to use archipelago. --Snowded ^TALK 07:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

(1). Please sign your posts ...

(2). The translation means British Isles ...

(3). I accuse you of deliberate abuse-of-process to obstruct something YOU DO NOT LIKE...

To bad. Live with it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) I did

(2) See above conversations from other editors

(3) See above conversations from other editors

--Snowded ^TALK 08:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

I am willing to go the "full-court-press" over this. I suggest that you carefully consider ANY funny-business that you might pull. I will tolerate NONE of it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, although I was always a loose forward (number 7) in Rugby, never played basketball. Joking aside, just read the above comments from other editors and you will see that there is not a clear consensus on the translation. As I say its not my area of expertise (Latin Translation), nor I suspect yours. At the moment you do not have any consensus for the translation you favour. Accusations and threats may be interesting curiosities, but your basic obligation is to respect the need for consensus (and editing standards please see WP:INDENT) otherwise you are in that disruptive behaviour zone again. --Snowded ^TALK 08:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

...and PS to AVDL - edits of >1000 bytes are not "minor". Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded ...

(1). I have been studying Latin translations for 3 months now,

(2). The specific book is referenced below,

Hermann Conring (1601-1681), [Discursus novus de Imperatore Romano-Germano. English] Hermann Conring's New Discourse on the Roman-German Emperor, Edited and translated by Constantin Fasolt (1951- ), Publisher: Medieval Renaissance texts and studies, Volume 282. Neo-Latin texts and translations, Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), pp.122, (2005).

(3). I repeat ...

Insulae in English means Islands or Isles.

Britanniae Insulae in English means British Islands or British Isles.

The meaning (i.e., the geographic context) of British Islands or British Isles is the same.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

ArmChair, the issue is not your expertise (Although I am not sure how confident I would be to advance a position based on three months study). I have no idea if the translation is correct or not. If it is correct then your wording is fine, if not then it shouldn't be there. At the moment and this is the issue, there is no agreement amongst other editors so you should seek consensus rather than just asserting you are right and everyone else is wrong. Pending that consensus you should not edit war to assert your definition in the article, let alone remove a tag. Your quotation above may give you citation support which would outweigh another editors opinion. The whole point is that you need to engage in that discussion and get agreement. I am taking no position on this particular content issue per se, what I can see is that its controversial. And (for the Nth time of asking) please read and respect WP:INDENT. --Snowded ^TALK 09:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can see (and AVDL's approach ensures that it's not clear), AVDL has still not addressed the fundamental issue that the map does not state "Insulae" (islands / isles), it states "Insula" (island). So, this whole discussion seems irrelevant to me, and any reference in the article to what AVDL suggests would be confusing and wrong. Do other editors here agree? Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC) PS. I support MITH's reversion to the earlier version. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, insulae had another meaning in Latin - it also meant "blocks of flats". So the term Britanniae Insulae could be translated as either "British Isles" or as "British Blocks of Flats". I'm sure those who wish to avoid, at all costs, translating the Latin term as "British Isles" will have a field day with this. ðarkun coll 10:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle ...

(1). Lily's First Edition (Copper-Plate Map) A.D. 1546 has Britanniae Insulae

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

BRITANNIAE INSULAE

(2). Lily's Second Edition (Copper-Plate) A.D. 1559 (from Bookseller shows Britannia Insula) which is probably a re-prodcution "boo-boo" (my opinion OK ...).

Next ...

(3). On Megale Britannia Insula stands the Kingdom of Scotland, and Kingdom of England

(4). On Mikra Britannia Insula (i.e., adjacent) stands the Kingdom of Hibernia ...

(5). Megale Britannia Insula et Mikra Britannia Insula combine to form the Island Group of Britanniae Insulae.

Lastly MITH has deleted the whole thing I added (under something called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BRD ) ...

You know what ... Snowded , Ghmyrtle, and MITH you win. You folkes are not interested in the truth ("Pearls-Before-Swine").

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the Italian language, the word island translates as isola, whereas islands is isole. It obviously derives from the Latin, so I believe Armchair is correct when he says Insulae means Isles or islands. I'm not taking sides in this dispute, I am merely stating this in an objective manner based on the fact that Italian is my second language.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiya AVD. I've been 'going over' the responses to your translation proposal to the article. All your fellow editors (I'm neutral) reject your proposal & are becoming annoyed with your pushing of it. Also, some are frustrated with how your posting style is using up so much talk-space. I highly recommend that you giveup on your idea & accept that there's no consensus for it. I fear the others are seeing you as being disruptive (a perception that could lead to your getting blocked). GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello GoodDay ...

Listed here below (for the last time) is the body of text that I tried to add to the British Isles article. I place it in the lead-section and there was some more wording ...

"An early description of the British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) distinguished between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. The same text also uses Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia.^[1]."

Listed here below (for the last time) is the body of text that Snowded edited and moved to the history-section of the British Isles article.

"An early description of the archipelego (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) distinguished between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. The same text also uses Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia.^[2]."

Now, I wanted the text "British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae)", and Snowded wanted archipelego (i.e., Britanniae Insulae) text to stand in its place. You all with me here (Snowded, Ghmytle, MITH) ? The archipelego is Britanniae Insulae. As well, the island group Britanniae Insulae refers to Megale Britannia Insula et Mikra Britannia Insula. None of the above is in dispute (it is ALL REFERENCED).

So here comes the road block. Insulae is Latin for Islands or Isles (NOT in dispute). Therefore Britanniae Insulae is Latin for British Islands or British Isles. In the geographic context British Isles and British Islands MEAN THE SAME THING. From about A.D. 132 to A.D. 1978 British Isles was alone on the linguistic map. The very recent invention of the term British Islands by the UK Parliament in the Interpretation Act 1978 does not have any baring here. It does not apply.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don;t necessarily want any particular solution here. I simply edited your insert to something that did not assert one side of a controversy on the talk page and moved it to a better position. In doing that I was trying to help you, it was tempting to simply revert it. What I do want is for you to pay attention to discussions and realise that however convinced you are of your position that you should seek and abide by consensus. You are simply repeating here what you have already said several times. I would also really like it if you would learn to format your comments, in particular to abide by WP:INDENT--Snowded ^TALK 21:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Will somebody ...

Hello Dunlavin Green.

The "Map" in question ...

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

These notes are taken from poor reproductions of the map of Britanniae ie the British Isles, by George Lily, Rome, 1546, and a number of derivative editions in the 16th century. The reproductions are given in:-Shirley, Rodney W: 1991 (revised edn): Early Printed Map of the British Isles: Antique Atlas:: ISBN 0 9514914 2 3

map type: HantsMap & Lily 1546

http://www.geog.port.ac.uk/webmap/hantscat/html/lily1.htm

BRITANNIAE INSULAE QUAE NUNC ANGLIAE ET SCOTIAE REGNA CONTINET CUM HIBERNIA ADIACENTE NOVA DESCRIPTIO

Now ... Britanniae Insulae is clearly indicatied in the First-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1546 by George Lily. Now the map that I linked above was a RE-PRODUCTION Second-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1559 by George Lily. The bookseller clearly states in the English Language summary that the map is of the British Isles (i.e., Britanniae Insulae ).

Why does the Second-Edition (Copper Plate) Map A.D. 1559 by George Lily only have Britannia Insula (i.e., not Britanniae Insulae ) in the margin? I do not know. My opinion ... it was a re-production error.

Lastly ... you won't have to "suffer-my-presence" here at Wikipedia anymore. People like you get to waltz-in, use foul-language and get away Scot-Free? Nobody has said "boo" to you about the blantant abuse that you have just heeped on me with impunity. Dunlevin Green you are welcome to the this place. Goodbye.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated all the material referred to above. It's entirely appropriate to include it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Needs Consensus tag is still in place, so I would hope the text can stay as a working version and can be fine tuned by discussion here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Retained the consensus tag - but on the basis of earlier discussion there is no chance of that being achieved around the text inserted by AVDL. Note that the map showing Ptolemy's description does not contain any reference to "the islands" collectively, only the names of the individual islands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not in dispute. Armchair noted the names of the individual islands. So far this discussin has just attracted trolls of the calibre of Dunlavin Green, so consensus doesn't seem to be much of an issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

So how are they relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More early maps

http://www.orteliusmaps.com/book/ort16.html Eckerslike (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, for information, this 1609 map by Ortelius of "Insularum Britannicarum Typus", which to my eyes translates as "figure of the British (or Britannic) islands (or isles)". Google searches suggest that the original version of this was published in 1590 - Ortelius died in 1598. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

..and this, which is Mercator's map of c.1570. Although the catalogue describes this as showing "the British Isles", the map itself does not show that name (in English or Latin). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)#

Ive had enough latin to last a life time after the above "debate". This is important because of the bit in the intro about John Dee being the first to use it, i think now it mentions the fact its the OED that says he was the first to use it takes away the main problem, but we do need the ref for that and if it cant be found it should be removed. Ive not liked Dee being mentioned in the intro from the start. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection

You all know the drill: Please talk politely, edit warring is bad, discussion is good, dispute resolution guidelines are here. Or simply wait six hours and restart the edit war then, but don't complain if the next admin sees things differently and blocks you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

I promise not to edit war. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The above was clearly a lie. You have done nothing but edit war. As a result I have requested page protection. Someone may revert your edit (again), I don't wish to be blocked for edit warring so I am ceasing to try stop your disruptive actions. I recommend you self revert your change ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! unless you wish to serve another block.MITH 12:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing Objections: Ghmytle, Snowded, MITH (i.e., Ghmytle et. al.)

To Ghmytle et. al.

(1). MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote this ... (Result : Britanniae Insulae Paragraph re-inserted, Needs Consensus Tag re-inserted)

I've reinstated all the material referred to above. It's entirely appropriate to include it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Needs Consensus tag is still in place, so I would hope the text can stay as a working version and can be fine tuned by discussion here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(2). Ghmyrtle (talk) wrote this ... (Result : deletion of Britanniae Insulae Paragraph, Needs Consensus Tag retained)

Retained the consensus tag - but on the basis of earlier discussion there is no chance of that being achieved around the text inserted by AVDL. Note that the map showing Ptolemy's description does not contain any reference to "the islands" collectively, only the names of the individual islands. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(3). MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote this ... (Result : notes that deleted Britanniae Insulae Paragraph is Referenced Material)

That's not in dispute. Armchair noted the names of the individual islands. So far this discussin has just attracted trolls of the calibre of Dunlavin Green, so consensus doesn't seem to be much of an issue. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

(4). Ghmyrtle (talk) wrote this ... (Result : concedes that deleted Britanniae Insulae Paragraph is Referenced Material)

So how are they relevant to this article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Defintion of Dispute with Ghmytle

Ghmytle advances that the citation of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Island and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Island are not relavent to the Wikipedia article on the British Isles (i.e, Britannia Islands).

(i). Ghmytle I accuse "your objection" as being baseless and illogical.

(ii). You are not ignorant on the subject of translations.

As-per, Ghmytle's comments on Ariconium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ariconium

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A strange objection indeed on the part of Ghmytle. Why should these descriptions of the two major components of the British Isles not be relevant to the article? I fail to see any valid reason whatsoever why not. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I agree with Nuclare's point below - "There's lots of referenced material that isn't on the page, nor should it be." In my view, it's just not that important, interesting or relevant. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmytle, I am forced to conclude that "your view" is meanless.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's lots of referenced material that isn't on the page, nor should it be. There once was info. about names that historically the Irish themselves seem to have used for the islands but that's been removed, as far as I can see. If this were a study of the history of all the naming issues surrounding all the islands throughout history and/or a detailed thesis on the classical worlds' view of Britain and Ireland, fine. But you can't just say 'a source says so! So lets lead off a 'History' section with it!!' Classical writers (almost none of whom ever set foot on the island of Ireland) said all sorts of goofy things about Ireland. In fact, "Goofy things said about Ireland by those who've never visited it" could actually make a fasinating Wiki article, but this here ain't that. What's the specific relevance of this Great Britain/Little Britain stuff to this general encyclopedic article and what makes it more important than the material about historical names that was removed? And a "Because a Greek Once Said So" scale of weighing what's noteworthy for this article is dubious.

And, btw, the book you linked above, AVDL, for the reference to the Greek-version "Great Britain"/"Little Britain" names, called "The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (he didn't you will note call it "...of the British Isles"--heck, maybe this Cambridge Univeristy Press published author is one of Wiki's anti-British Isles brigade!! He could be here amongst us right now removing references to British Isles EVERYWHERE....oh, run for the hills, pray to your gods, save us from the endtimes, the horror, the horror...!!!)...Ahem, sorry...anyways, here's what this book--your source--has to say on page 11: "It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country" (from The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland by Richard Bradley) Shall we quote that here as well? But, anyways, thank you, AVDL, for another BI-not-good-to-use reference. Nuclare (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Nuclare.

You wrote the following,

"And a "Because a Greek Once Said So" scale of weighing what's noteworthy for this article is dubious."

A Greek?

Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

Ptolemy's world map

Just any Greek? In field of Cartography (i.e., Maps) ole Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) was one of big dudes .... "THE FOUNDERS" of the whole bloody science. I would be inclinded to quote his description of Megal Britannia (Great Britain) Island (i.e., Avalon) and Mikra Britannia (Great Britain) Island (i.e., Hibernia). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

Nuclare wrote,

"Ahem, sorry...anyways, here's what this book--your source--has to say on page 11: "It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country" (from The Prehistory of Britain and Ireland by Richard Bradley) Shall we quote that here as well? But, anyways, thank you, AVDL, for another BI-not-good-to-use reference. Nuclare (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)"

The author when he states

"It is no longer accurate to talk of the 'British' Isles since most of Ireland is an independent country"

is expressing a personal opinion within a peer-reviewed Book. In other words the author's personal opinion is noted. Period. Nothing else.

Now, by the same token, the HISTORICAL FACTS expressed by Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

Ahem, to re-illustrate...

Megale Britannia (Great Britain) is to Alvion

Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) is to Hivernia

The put it bluntly the author Richard Bradley of "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland (2007) has WEAKENED HIS CASE. This is because of the following,

Island of Megale Britannia refers to the Island of Great Britain

Island of Mikra Britannia refers to the Island of Little Britain

and taken together with this

Island of Little Britain refers to the Island of Ireland

To sum up the authors book title can morph as follows,

"The prehistory of Britain and Ireland" (2007)

"The prehistory of Great Britain and Ireland" (2007)

"The prehistory of Great Britain and Little Britain" (2007)

"The prehistory of British Isles" (2007)

Personally I like the last one ...

"The prehistory of British Isles" (2007)

Should I write Mr. Richard Bradley about this?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Should I write Mr. Richard Bradley about this?" Yes, good idea. Why shouldn't he suffer too, like the rest of us? 86.133.200.115 (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello 86.133.200.115 (talk). Could you please sign in?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? Facts is it? And the text after the reference to the names Great Britain/Little Britain in which the author details the attitudes of Ptolemy's text toward the inhabitants of the islands: The British were barbarians and the Irish were even bigger barbarbians. Should we post that as FACTS too, since The Big-Dude-Roman-Citizen-of-Greek-or-Egyptian-Ethnicitiy said so? Like I said, if we want this to be a study of the history of all the naming issues surrounding all the islands throughout history and/or a detailed section on the classical worlds' view of Britain and Ireland, fine, let's put it. But it has to be put in context, and there's no reason to, then, not also reinsert the bits about the native people's of the islands' terms for their own home islands as well, which is actually more interesting than what Mr.-Big-Roman-Citizen-Who-May-Have-Been-Greek-or-Egyptian had to say. But to slap Great Britain/Little Britain in to the beginning of an otherwise underdeveloped History section as if it's the whole story and as if the NAMES he attributed are the whole story is, I'm sorry, dubious. Nuclare (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

Your UserPage says "Je suis Américaine". Well the United States of America (or its short-form name America) is certainly NOT something the Native Americans would of named themselves.

PS ... point-of-interest ,

"Je suis Américain" (Female Gender)

"Je suis Américaine" (Male Gender)

Are you a Male of Female?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair, would you PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read the various wikipedia style guides on how to edit a talk page. Every intrusion is an essay with repetitions spread over many lines, you never conform with WP:INDENT, you seem to think that every point you makes needs a blank line before and after, . You have many examples here, and I've tried to help a couple of times by formatting your comments to show you how it is meant to be done.

On the issue in hand, rather than an edit war how about a simple poll on if we think this is relevant to the article in the first place. If it turns out that it is then we can sort out the translation issue? --Snowded ^TALK 04:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Please do not bring up the indentation issue (i.e., WP:INDENT) again.

Whosonfirst 00:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me two--Whatsonsecond 00:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like indentation, Whatsonsecond--Why 00:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me three--Idontknow 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought you didn't like indentation either, Idontknow--::Because 00:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought that too, Because--Today 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Me four--Tomorrow 01:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)}}

If you look at my recent edits they follow (with "lip-service") to the WP:INDENT guidelines. Please note that guidelines are guides ... i.e., voluntary (i.e., not mandatory)

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep bringing it up as long as you fail to confirm to it ArmChair. You have graduated to using indentation within your own comments, but the idea is to show a thread of conversation. You are also ignoring guidelines on white space, creating excessive section headings etc. etc. Its verging on disruption. ~~As to the above comments, what is the purpose of all these Me links to pages that don't exist? What is the relevance?~~ --Snowded ^TALK 05:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

As-per the the indentation issue (i.e., WP:INDENT) they are guidelines ... guides. They are voluntary (i.e., not mandatory). I am not required to conform. Feel free to keep bringing it up until you are "blue-in-face". ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Islands of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and Little Britain (Mikra Britannia)

Hello MidnightBlue.

MidnightBlue (Talk) wrote,

"Armchair - put your text back and let's take it from there. BritishWatcher - how did you spot Dublin1994? I sometimes wonder if others are going about quietly removing British Isles and we don't know about it. It's too tedious counting up the linked pages to the article. Anyone know of any gadget that could help with monitoring the situation. BTW, I don't know of any current editors going around doing the opposite, but in the spirit of fairness, that should be monitored as well, if possible. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) "

The text for the Island of Great Britain (Megale Britannia) and the Island of Little Britain (Mikra Britannia) has been re-instated for discussion. Take care and best wishes, Don ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought the idea of page protection was to prevent edit warring? Immediately reinstated a disputed text after the protection ends just seems to risk starting the edit war up again (and is hardly discussion).

Also why yet another section heading? Why cut and paste chunks of text that have already been read? Why separate every sentence with white space? --Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Snowded.

Please refrain from lecturing me. I am well within my rights to re-instate in the British Isles Wikiepdia article ... the deleted material. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To MITH, Ghymytle , amd Snowded ...

In the British Isles article, the deletion a referenced contribution showing the (c. A.D. 132) description of Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insulae is happening without any rationale. This KEEEPING this in establishes the geographic usage of the term Britanniae Insulae (British Isles) many years before December 6, A.D. 1921 (i.e., its political usage).

Please ... do not delete it.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair, you should study history, you seem to have a flair for it. Tfz 13:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported AVDL at WP:AN3 - we're just waiting for a long block to be implemented now, I hope. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User conduct

I would like to remind everyone here that the Wikipedia editing process should be polite, respectful, civil, and collegial. I think most, if not all, of the contributors to this page should consider their own recent conduct, choice of words, and attitude, and whether it can be improved in future. Ask yourself if your contribution is raising the standard here, or lowering it.

Going forward I will consider issuing a short block to any editor who I think is being deliberately insulting, provocative, or counter-productive on this page, or is disruptively editing the article page. In order to avoid this, please ensure that your comments are focussed on policy, sources, and content, not on other contributors or their conduct. Worry about your own behaviour, please.

I understand that this is a contentious subject and feelings are liable to be strong. That's all the more reason for everyone to take more care before hitting "Save Page".

Thank you all for your understanding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving the discussion forward

If I might make an attempt to steer this discussion in a productive direction... Ptolemy is said to have in the second century A.D. described the island that we now know as "Ireland" as "Mikra Britannia (Little Britain)". Discussion as to whether this material should be included in this article might (I do not want to put words in anyone's mouth) focus on one or more of the following points:

This article is written in according to the guidelines at WP:Summary Style. As such the section British_Isles#History ought to be a concise, neutral summary of the lead section of the article History of the British Isles. Is the contested information important enough to appear there?
There may be a concern that this information gives undue weight to one particular viewpoint. If so, should more information be included to redress the situation, or is it a mistake to try to cover all viewpoints here?
Is it possible to find a compromise - a way of including this information that is less controversial, e.g. perhaps siting it elsewhere in this, or in a different, article?
There may be concerns with synthesis or original research - i.e. using this primary source as a way of expressing a viewpoint that the source does not, in fact, express. Can we agree on what this source does and does not say? Can we agree on how this material should or should not be used?
Is it productive to consider drawing a distinction between terms which have been used in the past and terms which may, or should, be used in the future? Should such questions be restricted to the British Isles naming dispute article?

One other point that I would like to make: The usage of bold type for these terms, in the article, is at odds with the guidelines in our Manual of Style, and on the Talk page, is distracting. One ought to be able to make one's point without the necessity of shouting. I would be very grateful if User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! were to avoid using bold text so liberally in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheese SheffieldSteel, I see you have protected the version that there is little consensus for. Armchair should be banned from this article. Tfz 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No he hasn't. Well he did to start with, but then he decided to endorse a version prior to Armchair's edits. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection isn't an endorsement of any version. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case I invite you to return the article to the version immediately prior to protection. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the correct decision was made to return it to the version prior to AVDL's unnecessary and highly contentious additions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That would be the "correct" version then? MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm...no such thing, it's all work in progress. But better before AVDL's intervention than after it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the key point above is that this is a summary article. Aside from the issues over translation which need some expert view, the material in a modified form belongs in the history article not this one. It is completely disproportionate to the rest of the material. To be honest I am confused as to why warfare has broken out over this, you can't really translate from a reference over a thousand years before Dee to anything which casts real light on that debate. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the wider use of BI debate which way it is translated. My vote goes for (i) its not relevant to this article (ii) an accurate translation and reference may be appropriate to the history page and (iii) anything or anyone who can get ArmChair to read and abide by style guides will win my undying gratitude.--Snowded ^TALK 20:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would be better in the history article, and for a similar reason let's also move the majority of material about the so-called naming controversy to the terminology or naming dispute articles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No MB. It must be made clear that it is a controversial term. It may not be in your eyes but it is in ours. --FF3000 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"Ours" ? Anyway, by all means make it clear, but as has been pointed out, this is a summary article, so the detail of the so-called controversy doesn't belong here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (mostly) with MidnightBlue on this (!!) The historic terminology issue should be at Terminology of the British Isles#Historical aspects. (Oh - it already is.) The naming dispute should be mentioned in this article, but not given disproportionate weighting. It also seems to me that WP needs to have an article summarising the shared history of the islands, and the changing relationships between its nations, which doesn't duplicate other articles more than necessary. The existing History of the British Isles article could be a starting point for that, but it would need a lot of work, and there will inevitably develop a problem over its title. In an ideal world (which WP isn't), editors from all corners would collaborate on writing the article on "the shared history of these islands" first, and then decide on its title. Is there a better, or more realistic, way of achieving the same end? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The detail should be on this article but the name dispute must be made clear, and have a link to the more detailed page. It can't be hidden from the reader. FF3000 (talk)21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No chace of it being hidden. I've just been reading the terminology article and I thought I was reading the naming dispute article. In the terminology article almost every mention of "British Isles" is accompanied by a reference to the so-called controversy. It's a bloody disgrace of an article. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic post removed, per guidelines) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am done. Do with it ... as you folkes wish. Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenging the assertion that the term British Isles does not relate to Ireland

The text below ...

"The term British Isles is controversial in relation to Ireland, where there are objections to its usage due to the association of the word 'British' with Ireland"...

seems to me to not be valid as

Megal Britannia Insula refers to the Island of Great Britain

Mikra Britannia Insula refers to the Island of Little Britain

and

Island of Little Britain refers to the Island of Ireland

Seems to me. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That phrase in the intro doesnt mean its disputed if British Isles includes Ireland, it just means people in Ireland dont like it because they dont want to be associated with the British and see it as some type of ownership issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher.

Ptolemy (A.D. 90-168) in his second book Geography (c A.D. 132) coined the Cartographic terms Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insula for the Britannia Insulae. Now Britanniae Insulae translates to British Islands or British Isles. In a geographic context they both have the same meaning.

Now Megale Britannia (Great Britain) Insula and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) Insula refer to Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Thus, the term Little Britain refers to Ireland. So this whole name debate is held hostage by the people who live in the legally described county known as the Republic of Ireland. I am very tried of this.

Note following ...

the English, Welsh, Scottish can be refered to collectively as the "Great British"

the Irish can be refered to collectively as the "Little British"

the the "Great British" and "Little British" can be refered to collectively as the British.

Do you see where this goes? It simplifies the terminology greatly.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's accept for now that Ptolemy referred to Ireland as "Mikra Britannia" in the second centry AD. So... what...? You haven't yet shown that this source has any bearing on whether the term is controversial today. Note that Wikipedia is not here to answer the question of which term is "correct" (assuming such a question can be answered). We're here to document the notable views on the subject. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, our edits overlapped. I believe the term "Little British" when used to refer to the Irish is (1) original research and (2) provocative to the point of being utterly non-productive. Please try a different line of argument, based on reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

The exclusion of Ptotemy's name Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) when refering to Ireland (island) guts the basis of my arguement. If it is excluded ... then I have been wasting everyone's time here. I have nothing more to add.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheffieldSteel.

The Irish (of the South) base their distaste of the term British as they contend that British refers only to Great Britain. Thus they claim the term British Isles is a misnomer, and offensive. However, the existence of the pre-existing term Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) refering to Hivernia soundly destroys the basis of their arguement. The term British means Great Britain and Little Britain, collectively. Do you see my point?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I do not see your point. I cannot see any argument that could be reasonably used as the basis for improving this article. There's nothing you've proposed that's verifiable with reference to reliable sources. Your line of reasoning seems to be entirely based on original research. That is simply not acceptable as the basis for changing the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello SheiffieldSteel.

Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) expressed in his second book Geography, which is a thorough discussion of the geographic knowledge of the Greco-Roman world.

[Please click here ... this is NOT original research. Not]

http://books.google.com/books?id=W4J1S-vl1Q0C&pg=RA1-PA3&lpg=RA1-PA3&dq=%22Little+Britain%22+Hibernia&source=bl&ots=KEYuZVebYC&sig=Csly0oelrBKAbgayTb8dauJOAqw&hl=en&ei=dTIzSsvME47YsgOi-83mDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"... account distinguishes between Megale Britannia (Great Britain) which refers to the larger island, and Mikra Britannia (Little Britain) which describes Ireland. Elsewhere he refers to them as Alvion and Hivernia, respectively. Ireland was better known by its Greek name Ierne or its Latin equivalent Hibernia (Rivet and Smith 1979: 37-40).

Ptolemy's map was conceived as a strictly scientific exercise, but accounts of their inhabitants took a different form." ...

The recent book is by the author Richard Bradley of "The prehistory of Britain and Ireland (2007).

Nothing here is original research .... Mikra Britannia(Little Britain) is a bone-fide referenced term. It was originally coined by Ptolemy in c. A.D. 132 in his book Geographia, and it was then again re-stated by the A.D. 2007 book of Richard Bradley. Thus, it spans about 1875 years (i.e., (2007 - 132) = 1875).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

All Bradley's book does is *document* one of the ways a map drawn up two thousand years ago labeled Ireland. He doesn't endorse the label and he isn't talking about the present; in fact, as pointed out above, Bradley, when it comes to present-tense usage, says the the word 'British' isn't an accurate means of naming Ireland. Nuclare (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nuclare.

The term British does not apply only to the Island of Great Britain. The term Great Britain is the correct term. The Great British live on the Island of Great Britain (not the the British).

In short the recently in-vogue term Britain and Ireland (for the British Isles) is WRONG. It should be Great Britain and Ireland (i.e., not Britain and Ireland). ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A.D. 1750 British Isles Map

The Britannica Insulae are

Britannia Major (i.e, Albion)

Britannia Minor (i.e., Ivernia)

This link is here ...

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3908~480110:Britannicae-Insulae-in-quibus-Albio

Short Title

Britannicae Insulae (A.D. 1750).

Long Title

Britannicae Insulae in quibus Albion seu Britannia Major, et Ivernia seu Britannia Minor, juxta Ptolemoei mentem divisae, tum in suas majores partes, tum in populos exhibentur, a Nicolao Sanson, Christ. Regis Geographo, Revisae, et ad Observationes astronomicas redactae, accurante Robert de Vaugondy filio, Cum Privilegio Regis, 1750. Guill? Delahaye sculpsit.

If people care about the truth...

Addenda: Insula versus Peninsula

Island of Great Britain: Insula Britannia Major (i.e, Great Britain)

Island of Little Britain: Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

Peninsula of Brittany: Peninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

It is important NOT to quote just the words Britannia Minor. It can refer to two different items,

(i). Insula Britannia Minor (i.e., Ireland)

(ii). Peninsula Britannia Minor (i.e., Brittany)

One has to very careful about this, lest you confuse the two with each-other (this illustrates the dangerous nature of using short-form names instead of using long-form names).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

An Honest Question: How is this related article (British Isles naming dispute) not Original Research?

Hello SheffieldSteel.

This is an honest question ... I am sincere.

Question:

How is this related article (British Isles naming dispute) not Original Research?

My sincere point is that the article entitled the British Isles naming dispute is an invention of Wikipedia ... is it not. I am sincere when I say that is not an attempt to disrupt the Wiki-Process. I just want to know.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Something I have long thought myself. The fact is, that the existence of that article elevates it to the status of something like the Macedonia naming dispute, whereas in fact there is no dispute at all, outside the minds of a few politically motivated editors of Wikipedia. ðarkun coll 07:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Listen, TharkunColl, people in Ireland only extremely rarely use the term because we don't like an impression of British being put on our country, whether it be a political or geographic term. It is an issue, not in Britain, but in Ireland, which is in the area that the British Isles covers. FF3000 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with FF3000. --- Tfz 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as a first step towards eventual deletion of the article we put an OR tag on it? I've just re-read the article and its style is more thesis than encyclopedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A good indicator pointing towards the article not being OR would be some similar text elsewhere. I haven't been able to find any, but so far I've just tried the Internet. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Article British Isles naming dispute tagged as OR. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed. There is no shortage of evidence showing that there is "dispute" (to put it mildly) about the term "British Isles" being applied to Ireland. Read the references link at the top of this page and, for that matter, read this article. That some people don't want to acknowledge the widespread rejection of the term in Ireland does not mean there is no dispute no more than my refusing to acknowledge the rain outside means it's not raining. They are two entirely different matters. 78.16.10.204 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Howdy 78.16.10.204

Welcome to Wikipedia. Via the usage of this handy-dandy IP Address Locator linked below,

http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm?GetLocation

we can all see that you hail from the City of Dublin, in the independent country legally-described as the Republic of Ireland. Could you please sign-in. This just a request (it is voluntary to sign-in, it polite but it is not mandatory).

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to spell this out in words of one syllable or something? Yes, there are people who don't like the term, and those who avoid it by using an alternative where possible, but none of that constitutes a dispute. A dispute would be where, for example, the British Government used "British Isles" in a political sense and the Irish Government formally objected to it. I say it again; there is no dispute, there is just a load of opinionated writers who don't like it. The "dispute", such as it is, only exists here, at Wikipedia. Tag put back. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute. The Irish government object to it's use as much as possible, the USA government will not use the term, for heck's sake even the British government avoid the term, as do National Geographic, UN, etc, and all the great organisations of the world. Tfz 22:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tfz.

Actually, we are wrong. That is We ... "the Wikipedia Community" can not artifically declare a "Dispute" into existance. Only the "International Stage" has the possession of that right. To sum-up ...un-offically the Government of Ireland (aka one quoted Diplomat in London) only "discourages" the use of the term British Isles. The Government of Ireland offically does not forbid its usage.

There is no bone-fide dispute "on the International Stage". A "Dispute" being only here at Wikipedia ... does not count.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello MidnightBlue.

I completely agree with what you wrote below ...

"... A dispute would be where, for example, the British Government used "British Isles" in a political sense and the Irish Government formally objected to it. I say it again; there is no dispute, there is just a load of opinionated writers who don't like it. The "dispute", such as it is, only exists here, at Wikipedia. ..."

In the case of Macedonia, the Government of the Hellenic Republic has formally, "on the International Stage" forbidden the use internationally of the Name of Republic of Macedonia by the Government of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

White space?

There is a lot of 'white space' on the article talk lately. The archives are already circa 30 in number. At this rate there will be another 30 archives building up very quickly. Tfz 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

We are certainly getting through alot of text, although clearly one editor is helping the most with that. We may have to archive the archives :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tfz. My posting style reflects the way that I construct my thoughts. I recognise that this results in "White-Space". I will try to cut that down. In posts that I feel do not need a precise structure (i.e., clearly showing the relationship of long-form name(s) and short-form name(s) ) I will try very hard to be as compact as possible. However, for posts that emphasise the relationship of Name(s), I reserve "the-choice" to insert White-Space.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland need to be used.

Howdy.

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[8] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.[9]"

When this article gets unlocked I intend to edit the first paragraph as follows,

"The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller islands.[7] There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.[8] The British Isles also includes the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and, by tradition, the Channel Islands, although the latter are not physically a part of the island group.[9]"

In my opinion, the insertion of Island of Great Britain and Island of Ireland need to be used. The term Great Britain can now refer to TWO THINGS at the same time,

Island of Great Britain

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Additionally, the term Ireland can now refer to TWO THINGS at the same time,

Island of Ireland

Ireland (the independent country legally-described as the Republic of Ireland)

That is what I intend to edit folkes, indeed. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Such an edit would be wrong (as well as ungrammatical). As stated at Great Britain: It (i.e. Great Britain) makes up the largest part of the territory of the sovereign state the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the term Great Britain is sometimes used inaccurately to refer to the United Kingdom. Please note - inaccurately. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. I have made the follow edit,

The British Isles are an island archipelogo off the northwest coast of continental Europe that include the Island of Great Britain and the Island of Ireland, and numerous smaller adjacent islands.

The usage of the long-form name of the Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are correct, and in accordance with the Oxford Style Manual (2003) Style guide. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for this change. It is mis-spelled, ungrammatical, and confusing (for example, some of the isles are not "adjacent"). The existing unaltered wording is clearer and preferable. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ghmyrtle. I disagree. The explicit statement of the long-form names of Island of Great Britain, and the Island of Island are neccessary, clear, and grammatically correct. As per it being mis-spelled, could you please tell where? I would appreciate the help very much with this. Thank you again. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually very helpful to other editors, but in the face of your persistent obstinacy I must make an exception in your case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

lol Ghmyrtle. Anyway im happy with the current wording and dont see a need for change. Its clear the first sentence is talking about islands, and the second sentence is talking about sovereign states. This is not something to get into a war over. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair's new version before its reversion was nonsensical. An island archipelogo [sic] doesn't make sense. Archipelago = cluster of islands so an island archipelago = island cluster of islands--go figure!. The use of island of in front of Great Britain and Ireland is superfluous and makes the sentence look daft. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Armchair has been sat upon - now blocked for a month. :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very funny. I'm sure AVDL appreciates your humour. LevenBoy (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected again - please read WP:BRD

I've protected this article again, due to another edit war over what ought to be a trivial and uncontroversial detail.

I would like to ask all editors to avoid treating Wikipedia content disputes as extensions of real-world political disputes. That is, if you see someone reverting someone else, do not involve yourself in an edit war based on which version of the text you think is more favourable to the "British" or "Irish" position. Instead, discuss the matter on the Talk page, be reasonable, and attempt to work towards establishing a consensus.

Please review the essay The Bold-Revert-Discuss Cycle and follow it in future. If someone makes a bold edit which doesn't have consensus, then another editor may revert the edit saying "Reverting per WP:BRD. No consensus / please discuss" or similar. But once an edit has been reverted, that's the end of the dispute as far as the article in concerned, and that text should not be changed again until a consensus for it has been established here.

In future I will block any editor who reverts a revert on this article. Block durations will be based on prior block history for that editor, if any, per WP:Blocking policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic material moved to User talk:Sarah777)

Ummm can i just get clarification on this Sheffield, you say anyone who reverts a revert on this article will get blocked. I think i reverted a revert of a revert... did i do anything wrong and if i did that again would i be blocked? BritishWatcher (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this revert, the answers are yes and yes. Of course, the previous edit would have got AVDL blocked, and hopefully it would not have been made in the first place. The solution - and this is always the solution when there's an edit war - is to discuss and get a consensus as to the correct form of words in the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But i was restorinng the previously stable version. AVDL made an edit, Ghmyrtle undid it saying no consensus. AVDL reverted back to his new version (clearly breaking ur 1 edit rule). But then i undid that and restored the previously stable version. I dont understand how i did something wrong n that case, if no normal editor is allowed to undo something we have to wait for a admin to arrive on the scene to ban him and restore the original version?????? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find this is not going to work. BRD depends on the D. This will just encourge R and no D, or maybe if there's no D another R is OK? And another thing, if you dole out blocks like you're threatening to do, some editors will just reinvent themselves as someone else, and who can blame them (some of the comments you've removed from here are relevant). LevenBoy (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If editors re-invent themselves, they'll make themselves very obvious indeed and will be blocked in turn. Also, such disruption will inevitably lead to the article being fully protected for an extended period, which there is plenty of precedence for in nationalist disputes. Black Kite 22:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:There is no deadline. Wikipedia is in a process of continuous improvement and the version you see today might be gone by tomorrow. You need to ask yourself if you think the current state of the article, right now, at the moment you're looking at it, is important enough to get blocked over. If you think it is, you are likely to get involved in edit warring, which is disruptive and unproductive, and you are liable to be blocked for it. I understand the desire to revert to the stable, pre edit war, consensus version of the article, but such a revert is indistinguishable from taking part in the edit war - unless you wait until it is clearly over. Reverting quickly in this case is unfortunately counterproductive, and an edit summary won't necessarily make any difference. The only way to de-fuse the situation is to get consensus on the talk page, even if it's just a temporary agreement to restore the previously stable version which a new consensus is established. And of course, if you can't get consensus to go back to that version, all the more reason not to revert to it during an edit war. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Very well i wont make such reverts again, i never knew such actions were unacceptable. I thought aslong as you didnt break the 3RR or 1RR where applied it was ok to restore to the stable article if someone has undone a revert. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Normally, you'd be correct in that making such a revert would not be considered disruptive. It is only the unfortunate fact that people are willing to edit war over such trivial edits that has made it necessary to impose such editing restrictions here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, i understand now. Thanks for clarification BritishWatcher (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree that my original remarks were "off-topic" as they were a direct consideration of you stated blocking policy on this very page. Why you dumped the off-topic bits on my page I'm frankly at a loss to understand. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, given the current policy regarding this article, we should all move elsewhere and abandon it. And I'm talking across the board here - those in favour of BI and those who reject it, nationalist of every shape and form. Maybe this is something we can all agree on. The article, has, in effect, been sterilised. LevenBoy (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has views "in favour of" BI, or "against" it, should indeed move elsewhere. We (some of us, anyway) are here to create an encyclopaedia, not a soapbox. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, if you have questions about blocking policy, then WT:BLOCK is the best place to ask them - but I should point out that taking prior history into account when considering blocks is scarcely unusual. If you have concerns about my conduct, post them on my user talk page, and if you're still unhappy, at the admins' noticeboard. This page is for discussing improvements to this article, and this thread is for clarifying the editing restriction I've put in place, not for attacking admins or discussing blocking policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and British Islands both translate in Latin to Britanniae Insulae

The basic "road-block" as far as Snowded's coined "Controversy" is summarized below ...

British Isles and British Islands both translate in Latin to Britanniae Insulae

The Wikipedia article for British Isles and the Wikipedia article for British Islands distinguish them in two different contexts. The latter (i.e., British Islands) is a political term to indicate the territory upon which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands stand.

It would stand to reason that the British Islands covers slightly less territory that the entirety of the British Isles, because the independent country legally described as the Republic of Ireland is NOT included in the legally described term British Islands. To put things in a mathematical context ...

British Isles = British Islands + Non-British Islands

So ... in the Interpretation Act 1978 the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland tried to invent a legal description of British Islands to out-do the Republican-Irish at their own game. Well the Irish (both the Northern Irish and Republican-Irish) can not be bested in that department. They will out wordsmith you every time.

Down-to-Brass-tacks...

Britanniae Insulae refers to Megale Britannia Insula and Mikra Britannia Insula.

2 refers to 1 + 1

Why the road block?

Cayman Insulae refering to Megale Cayman Insula and Mikra Cayman Insula

Megale means Great (Grand, Grande, Groβ) .... i.e., Big One

Mikra means Little .... i.e., Small One.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Lmao cute map BritishWatcher (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I throw in my tuppence-worth here? I studied Latin for several years; now, having done two Masters' degrees in English I'm entrenched in a PhD on the subject. I perhaps have some little expertise I can bring to bear. And it would appear that this is a very strange argument, with a debate being fought on entirely the wrong grounds. I hope I can clarify the debate, without necessarily finding a resolution - I just want to make sure people are all on the same page.

1. This mostly has nothing to do with Latin. Leave 'Britanniae Insulae' aside for the moment.

2. Are the words 'Isles' and 'Islands' synonymous in English? In common usage 'isle' is merely an abbreviation of 'island', and etymologically appeared as such. In 1640 Ben Jonson referred to Great Britain as 'this sea-girt isle'.

3. The 1978 neologistic meaning for island is used in Parliamentary acts relating to the business of government. Therefore, bizarrely, the dispute concerning 'British Isles' versus 'British Islands' is a technical name' versus 'common name dispute, and should consider Wikipedia guidelines on the subject.

4. Given the late date (1978) of the term 'British Islands', it is more historically-appropriate to translate 'Britanniae Insulae' as 'British Isles' because, as the Jonson reference demonstrates, that term was in common usage for the vast majority of the time it required translation.

Please feel free to disagree with my logic, but please ensure you do so in a courteous manner. I have no more desire than anyone else to be flamed. BlackMarlin (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti British Isles Brigade

I see today there was another attack on wikipedia by certain people pushing their point of view. [4]. Will their campaign to rid the world of the British Isles never end? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that for a new editor like me looking around this space and these topics, there appears to be a campaign all right. The editors that vent their fury at anyone editing around usage of British Isles is very much based on questioning the motives of the editors and claiming that a nefarious campaign is afoot. Just an observation. You'd be better off arguing about content. BTW, in this case I think the editor was correct. Qaziphone (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

For these people it isnt about content. They dont like British Isles so they go around like a virus seeking to destroy it and remove it from history. The edit wasnt even correctly done and the edit summary about making it more neutral was clearly pushing an agenda. I sometimes think the world has gone mad. There is a debate on September 11 attacks about if the people who carried out those attacks are terrorists or not, How neutral do we have to be??? jesus BritishWatcher (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What youve said is that it is irrelevant if the edit made the article any better or not, but anybody who edits and removes the term British Isles is engaged in a campaign? That doesnt make sense. Is that what you mean? Qaziphone (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Certain people are clearly engaged in a campaign to remove British Isles from wikipedia, im not saying its some organised plot but the patterns of the endless war on the term by many different editors is disturbing. If making changes to an article clearly improve it ofcourse that is fine, removing something just because you dont like the term is unacceptable and thats what he put in his edit summary. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a "campaign" at all (and certainly not an "attack on Wikipedia"), but rather a reasonable point of view which is shared rather more widely than you believe. Worth considering, perhaps. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the things in that article dont make sense but the edit made was clearly for one reason, the edit summary said about making it more "neutral". British Isles is a geographical term, it is wrong for people to try to justify removing it because its not "neutral". That is clearly pushing an agenda and it is disgraceful, i see it as an attack on wikipedia, we have seen this agenda non stop. We have been here enough times having to fight off people trying to change this article itself because they dont like it.. it really takes the biscuit. As i have said many times, i totally understand why many people in Ireland hate the term British Isles but we can not rewrite history or redraw the maps (except when some Irish-American pressure groups impose their will on private companies, but it shouldnt happen here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

BW, please try not to ascribe motives to people, without any justification. I'm sure the motives vary between individuals - on both sides of the argument - but we do need to focus on content at all times. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ghmyrtle, ofcourse there are two sides to everything and i accept in the past some people may of gone around inserting British Isles for political reasons, but that is something ive never done. The only places ive commented on these issues as far as im aware is when someone has tried to remove it. In some cases i see it as justified like on [{Derry]] where we can talk about Europe instead, in cases like British Empire i see no justification for its removal but accept some of the reasons given for wanting it removed. In the case i mentioned earlier though it was a clear cut case of someone not liking the term and seeking its removal because they can not accept its as neutral. Again i understand why they hate the term, but they cant go around removing things just because they dont like it. British Isles is not just a term known in Britain, its known in many places. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello BritishWatcher.

If I may ...

Great Britain Island refers to Avalon

Little Britain Island refers to Hibernia

Therefore we have ...

British Islands refers collectively to Great Britain Island and Little Britain Island

British Isles has an identical geographic meaning to British Islands

British Isles refers collectively to Great Britain Island and Little Britain Island

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Armchair. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is Little Britain Island? FF3000 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ye olde island of IRELAND. --De Unionist (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry DU, but Ireland isn't Little Britain Island. FF3000 (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello FF3000. Actually the Island of Ireland is also refered to as the Island of Little Britain. Oh yes .. it is.

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Armchair - put your text back and let's take it from there. BritishWatcher - how did you spot Dublin1994? I sometimes wonder if others are going about quietly removing British Isles and we don't know about it. It's too tedious counting up the linked pages to the article. Anyone know of any gadget that could help with monitoring the situation. BTW, I don't know of any current editors going around doing the opposite, but in the spirit of fairness, that should be monitored as well, if possible. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an editor doing just that. Tfz 01:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Had that page on my watch list for some time i saw someones revert of Dublins edit. I had come across him before though, he kept trying to insert "Ireland got independence from Britain in 1922 on History of Europe" the other day as though it was a major point in European history lol.

I too would like to see some recent attempts by editors to insert BI on wikipedia, because every case ive come across has been where its been in the article for months and someone is trying to remove it. funny that BritishWatcher (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I doubt if Dublin1994 was an Irish editor. The name is a bit too obvious, and they knew virtually nothing about Ireland. Most likely that it's just some editor up to some mischief, trying to stir things up. Tfz 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Another comment Actually, I think Dublin1994 was right to mention Ireland's independence. It is a notable event for a country to gain freedom. We know all the fuss that was created over Kosovo getting independence last year, and that was merely a dot. FF3000 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if hes Irish or not, i admit i presumed he was but that would make little difference really, intentions are clear. On the Irelands independence bit, if the article listed everything that happened in Europe then ofcourse it should mention Irish independence, the trouble is that article covers everything throughout history, it leaves out huge chunks of information and focuses on the major points like world wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's another - [5]. I've reinstated it (with ref.) MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In that case i think removal of the whole sentence was justified and dont think it has anything to do with British Isles being mentioned. Ive undone it for the time being, there probably is a need for talking more about Ireland there and mentioning British Isles would be acceptable but i really do not like the way it mentions such a minor and disgusting party like the BNP. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's everything to do with British Isles. Have a look at some of Qaziphone's other edits, then have a look at the edit history (you'll need to go back long way - long before Qaziphone was editing) of those articles, then consider his comments on various talk pages, paying particular attention to his wordage. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Theres certainly a focus on the British Isles issue yes, but in the case of the nation state article i do think its justified it was only recently added anyway by one editor. I dont know why Griffin is important enough to be mentioned there im sure there are dozens of other nutty MEPs who could be mentioned on that article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the addition was quite pertinent (and one where a new mention of BI would be accepted, maybe by the anti-BI brigade as well). It highlights an unusual proposition; one that serves to illustrate the concept of a nation state very well, particularly within the context of the UK. Don't forget that Wikipedia isn't censored and our own political beliefs should not influence anything here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, the edit by Qaziphone that I find most intriguing is the one he made to Boxing Day. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that talking about the British isles and a view of shared nationhood is a good thing there, i didnt have a problem with the fact BI was used just didnt like the whole sentence as it seemed focused on the BNP which is a tiny party whos opinion doesnt and shouldnt matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

MidnightBlueMan, if there is such a thing as the "Anti-British Isles Brigade" well then you are most certainly the leader of the "Pro-British Isles Brigade". It is very obvious that you love the term, as you enforce it and you've even created your own userbox saying "This user lives in the British Isles". FF3000 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said to you elsewhere, put another record on. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I do have to put on a record from time to time, don't I? I suppose you don't exactly always vary your comments either though, to tell the truth. FF3000 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How many articles has Midnightblue randomly inserted British Isles into? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

FF3000, to answer this question feel feee to trawl though my edits, but I'll save you the effort and tell you that it's zero. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that I trawled through your edits. You just said that I constantly repeat myself, and then I said that it is actually you who repeats themselves. --FF3000 (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You just said that I constantly repeat myself, and then I said that it is actually you who repeats themselves....said FF3000...repeating himself... BlackMarlin (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The term British Isles will always be used on Wikipedia, it can never be completely deleted (nor should it be). Anyways, the name of this article shall continue to be as it is (British Isles). GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"British isles brigade" was coined a couple of years ago, can't remember exactly where on WP, but any derivative of the original term is plaguerism.) Tfz 19:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Tfz im sure we are all glad you managed to drag urself back to wikipedia after last night. Nobody is claiming ownership of the phrase and it can be used in any one anybody wants. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

And on it goes! They're having another crack at Britannia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, MB, the "cracking" will continue if a compromise isn't reached! And unless you give a more civilized response, then the edit warring will continue. FF3000 (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounded like a direct threat. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a "direct threat", but I'm being serious, that MB has to give more civilized responses, rather than giving ones whih spark off a debate. FF3000 (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again, another insertion of the term British Isles. It's happening everyday. Tfz 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the article we have been talkng about above. British Isles has been moved to the second sentence and it seems like a reasonable compromise to the wording because it makes more sense. If this is happening every day give us more examples of where an editor has randomly added British Isles into the text. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

OK BW. I must commend you for not pushing the term in that instance, but it still got on, and the title of this section states the 'other' is happening on a wide-scale basis. I don't believe that, and there are always a couple of edits we can find here and there, but it's not endemic as some would suggest. Tfz 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This was the first case ive been involved in where someone has within the past few weeks added British Isles to an article for no reason and i dont have a problem if it is completly removed from there, the question of sources for some of the stuff added may still lead to more changes. I dont know why the IP added British Isles in that case, they certainly made the article inaccurate but looking at other contributions by that IP i cant see a pattern. Lets not forget the removal of the term wasnt because it was wrong, they didnt consider it "neutral" enough and replaced it with something that was also incorrect.

Ive always accepted that there are troubles with both sides, but i can think of about 6 cases recently where some have tried to have British Isles removed (some cases were more justified than others), this is the first case where ive seen it added for no reason at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book (c. A.D. 132) Geography
^ Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book (c. A.D. 132) Geography

[1] Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book (c. A.D. 132) Geography

[2] Claudius Ptolemaeus (A.D. 90-168) in his second book (c. A.D. 132) Geography

[1]

[2]