Talk:British Isles/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Opening sentence edit.

"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". From a simply grammatical point of view I am changing this to 'Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands'. I went to the shop with John and Mary, and Tom - I went to the shop with John, Mary and Tom. It simply sounds better and would be more likely to be said. This is in no way politically or personally motivated and should not be offensive to either party! Fionnsci (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nor me. Not happy about the use of white space in comments on this page though - brings back bad memories... :-} Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, i must confess that i checked Fionnscis contributions because i thought at first it might be a certain banned editor. ;) BritishWatcher (talk) 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Snap! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't think anyone here has any problem with Fionnsci's edit, or contribution to this page. This formatting is quite understandable when attempting to make clear an edit. I'm sure Fionnsci can understand, after paging up a couple of times, why other editors might be a bit jumpy  :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, although I agree with the edit, there's a more subtle grammatical point to be made here (and to reiterate - I agree with the edit!). It is acceptable to use 'I went to the shop with John and Mary, and Tom' because it implies social structure. It could be that John and Mary are partners, and need to be seen in that light. Or it may be that John and Mary were the ones you primarily wanted to come to the shops, and Tom tagged along as an afterthought. In both cases the grammar makes a point about importance. Now, in the case of 'Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands', the grouping that is done has political implications to do with ideas of dominance (Great Britain and Ireland are 'more important', whatever that means, than, say, the Channel Isles or the Island of Man - I think those are their correct names, yes? ;-) ). And that, I think, is something we'd do very well to avoid in an article as disputed as this one... BlackMarlin (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

John Dee first mention issue

Given that this has come up again (see earlier insertion) I think we need to resolve this. Todate the article has gone with the referenced material which shows the first use as being John Dee, which also coincides with the de facto start of the British Empire. We had the various ArmChair exchanges above with issues over translation etc. It seems to me that:

• The translation of the map is at best ambiguous
• We see no further use of even ambiguous language until Dee
• The modern construct or use of the term is clearly tied up with post-Elizabethan use which also accounts for the multiple controversies over the name
• In any event the phrase "the first english use" is wrong

I still don't understand why this is a political issue by the way. Its a minor issue and not central to the main debate on the legitimate and illegitimate uses (I take the position that there are both) of the term. --Snowded ^TALK 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get this "first use in English" thing. "British Isles" is an English language term, and an apparently similar term in a different language such as Latin does not necessarily have precisely the same meaning. "Insulae Britannicae" can be translated as "British Isles", but that is not the only translation, as I've said before - it could be translated as "Britannic islands" (small "i") for example, which does not have the same connotations of sovereignty/domination at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are occurying, so the article should probably be locked for another week lol. The current dispute on use of the word English probably depends on what the OED source says, but as of yet no body has produced this source so how do we know if they say Dee was first to use the term in English or just first to use it. Im still very unhappy about Dee being mentioned at all in the introduction, i dont think its justified BritishWatcher (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got access to the OED. What do you want looked up? -- Evertype·✆ 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well whats the entry under British Isles on there? does it mention Dee? apparently it says hes the first guy to use the term, but different people not just armchair and his maps have disputed this. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Yes, his is the first citation in the OED, and I have put in that footnote. Also I have added a section on etymology (based on what's in the OED), so you can look at that too. -- Evertype·✆ 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the citation: 1577 J. DEE Arte Navigation 65 "The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner." 1621 P. HEYLYN Microcosmus 243 (heading) "The Brittish Isles." -- Evertype·✆ 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But does that say he was the first person to ever use the term? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED wouldn't usually say that about any word unless it was a coinage like hobbit. It's just the earliest citation. Either Dee coined the word (no evidence either way) or he wrote down something that was at least somewhat current (which would be the predominant paradigm). -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Then the current wording is incorrect and the source provided doesnt back it up. The claim in the article is very clear according to the OED Dee was the first person to use the term. If the OED Doesnt say he was the first to use it, the whole sentence needs removing or atleast for it to say "one of the earliest uses of the term is..." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting question BW. If it was any citation I would agree, but here it is the OED, so if there was an earlier reference you would expect that source to list it. --Snowded ^TALK 19:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

But that is still very different to what we currently have. Theres a difference between being the first KNOWN to use the term and the first to use the term. Whilst i was always agaisnt the inclusion of the Dee guy i was under the impression the OED actually said something along the lines of "the first to use the term was Dee", i didnt think it was just the first thing they mention. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, fine, that was easy enough to fix. See the relevant sentence. -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

VEry good change thankyou, this fixes the problem in my view although i still dont think it belongs there. We dont say on the Europe article when the word "Europe" came about in the intro but atleast the intro isnt wrong now. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re the new etymology section - although I don't speak Welsh, I do know that "ynys" means island, singular, not "isles", plural - so it presumably relates to Great Britain not the Isles...? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The Etymology section could certainly use some sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Same OED entry as the Dee citation. S.v. "British Isles". -- Evertype·✆ 19:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"S.v."... ?? Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The nomenclature of Britain/GB etc is as potentially misleading in Welsh as in English, however one would never use 'Ynys Prydain' (lit. 'The Island of Britain') for "British Isles". 'Prydain Fawr' ('Great Britain') is also widely used for the island and, as in English and just as incorrectly, strictly speaking, for "Great Britain" as in "UK of GB and NI". Historically, Ynys Prydain had the principal meaning of 'territory of the Brythons', roughly equivalent to Roman Britannia (for this use of Welsh ynys in the sense "land, realm", compare Latin insula). Similarly, 'Prydain' ("Britain") was interchangeable for 'Ynys Prydain' and had the same meaning, and in modern usage should really only refer to the island of Britain itself and, at most, its offlying islands, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales = 'gwledydd Prydain' (a popular modern term meaning "the countries of Britain"; note it doesn't include NI). For "Britain and Ireland" in the geographical sense one would normally say 'Prydain ac Iwerddon', quite logically. 'Ynysoedd Prydain' should, strictly speaking, only be used for the territories of England, Scotland and Wales: does not include Ireland, north or south. Of course, just as in English - and largely thanks to the influence of that language and Anglo-American culture - you will find examples in everyday usage which might appear to contradict some of these definitions! Hope that helps. I'll copy this and add it to the talk page for "British Isles", but I'm not going to be drawn into a protracted and pointless debate (hey, the summer's here, just about!). Enaidmawr (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added an edited version of the above, referenced, to the Etymology section. A bit rushed, but it's Saturday night and I'm going to put my feet up for a while. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I will edit the Welsh refs included by Enaidmawr, which in my view go into too much detail at that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'm not sure why we have the "not necessarily this" added in on the Dee issue. There are two issues here. One is the etymology, where I think we can rely on the OED as an authoritative source that this is the first reference in terms of the derivation of the modern phrase (that is after all the purpose of the OED so if its lists no earlier examples ....). The issue of Dee's politics and his creation (with others) of the myth of Britain is a more complex one and we really need a stand alone cited sentence don;t we? --Snowded ^TALK 09:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You can't bang out this new sentence in less than a day and hope its alright. It doesn't add anything to the intro.MITH 09:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If this stuff about Dee goes in the intro it needs some caveats to make it really clear that it is highly contrived, very close to being anachronistic OR, and pushes a particular POV. Since Dee was writing in early modern English the compromise would be to move it to the etymology section so it sits after the Greek, Latin, Old English, Middle English versions, and before the Modern English. The easier option would be to take it out altogether - the need to clarify and caveat every sub-clause with citations and comments in parentheses speaks volumes about it's value. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree i really do think this whole Dee sentence should be removed from the intro. The thing was added without debate or agreement moments before the article was locked for a couple of weeks and sadly it has remained there for over a month. It now turns out that the article was incorrect. We were claiming the OED said Dee was the first person to use the term, after being told what the OED actually says its clear they dont say that. Remove it all or the major caveats must remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. The OED shows the etymology of the term, if its first use is Dee then that establishes first use. --Snowded ^TALK 12:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im sorry but i still think theres a big difference between the OED listing the first recorded use of the term and having the intro saying Dee was the first person to use the term. those two things are different and until a few days ago we didnt even have the disclaimer that it was the OED saying that. It was placed in this intro as undisputed fact. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The whole point about etymology is that it shows origins of the modern term. The fact that people may have talked in the past about the British Islands or the Brittanic Islands or whatever is not relevant to the origins of "British Isles" which has a specific meaning. --Snowded ^TALK 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, could you explain (with sources) how different people in different ages meant different things when using the same term ("British Isles"). One would think they meant exactly the same thing, even if the spelling changed. Of course, if they did mean different things could you provide a source showing that Dee explicitly included Ireland in his use of the term? Or that King Alfred, Caesar or Pytheas did not? Also, could you explain why you think that we should link the early modern Brytish Iles with the modern English British Isles, but not link the former with earlier spellings of the same words? I'm afraid the logic escapes me. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The word Britain means very different things in Roman Times to what it means today Wiki-Ed. Words and labels mean different things in different periods. I have no idea of John Dee included Ireland or not. What matters here is reliable sources, hence the OED gives us the standard on etymology unless you have something else. --Snowded ^TALK 13:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be pretty obvious, without refs, that Caesar and Pytheas, at least, did not use the term "British Isles". They spoke different languages. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must admit that I thought it was obvious as well, but if not then explanations are necessary. In parallel with I am handling some US Government Knowledge Management people who object to my using the term "evolution" as its a belief so I admit I am in a state alternating between despair and amusement and should probably take a break from editing in consequence .... --Snowded ^TALK 14:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, you're quite right that Caesar and Pytheas were speaking different languages, but the same could be said of Alfred (Old English) and Dee (Early Modern English). That's not really the point - the term has jumped from language to language - there is no reason to isolate it's first use in a moderately comprehensible English as its absolute first use. The OED is telling you that the term derives from modern English's immediate predecessor but we know that derivation is but the first link in a chain. While the OED source is reliable, its usage in this context is not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The words used by Caesar and Pytheas are not the "same words" as used by later writers. The translation of the Greek and Latin terms which they used into the modern English term "British Isles" is just that - a translation, that is "the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text.. that communicates the same message in another language... Newcomers to translation sometimes proceed as if translation were an exact science — as if consistent, one-to-one correlations existed between the words and phrases of different languages, rendering translations fixed and identically reproducible, much as in cryptography. Such novices may assume that all that is needed to translate a text is to encode and decode equivalents between the two languages, using a translation dictionary as the "codebook". On the contrary, such a fixed relationship would only exist were a new language synthesized and simultaneously matched to a pre-existing language's scopes of meaning, etymologies, and lexical ecological niches." It's worth noting that the translation of Insulae Britannicae into "British Isles" occurred in a time and in a place when the potential connotations of the term "British Isles" were not being probed as forensically as they are on this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, which is why attributing modern-day concepts to a Renaissance author is wrong. On your point about translation you'll note that "Brytish Iles" is not modern English. Most people would work it out, but then again, most people would also work out what the Latin and possibly even the Greek nouns referred to. Since the religious and scholarly parts of society often spoke Medieval Latin in Dee's time it's disingenuous to suggest this term suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Norman Davies isn't shy about describing the etymology in his The Isles, which I assume is mostly agreeable to both sides of this discussion so there's no objective reason why people here should be getting fixated on this. We're not talking about the translation of a whole book and the myriad idioms that might hide within; we're talking about a single noun that has survived and skipped from language to language, albeit with a few spelling changes, for two millennia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. "Brytish Iles" is an English language term with a spelling slightly different from the current spelling. Britannia is Latin, a different language. The individual words "British" and "Isles" clearly had older origins, but we are talking about the first referenced use of the two word term in English. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea when the term was first used or who used it. All im saying is we originally said John Dee was the first person to use it quoting the OED, but the OED apparently doesnt say that, it simply lists John Dee as the first known person to use it. I dont think John Dee belongs in the intro at all, but aslong as its explained John Dee is the first known to use it (like it does now by saying the earliest citation of it is..), rather than a presumption that he was the first to use it then its ok. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, all references in the OED and elsewhere to "first use" are to the first referenced use. Who knows what terms were used in language before they were written down and recorded? No-one. This is getting silly. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Im happy with the current wording. Im just pointing out despite several people raising concerns over the past few months about this John Dee guy being included in the article which have been ignored or dismissed, it didnt say what the OED said. Theres a difference between "First use" and "first referenced" use, and ive always wanted that distinction to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If Dee is the first recorded use of the term, then it follows that that is the first use of the term. Pure and simple. Tfz 14:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on people. The earliest attestation in the OED is Dee's from 1577. I already mentioned this above: If Dee had coined the expression, then it does date to 1577. If he did not, he was using something more or less current at the time. The OED citation means that the term is AT LEAST as old as 1577. It could be older. Tfz, you are wrong; "first attested" or "first referenced" mean that and nothing else. Neither means "first use". It is not "pure and simple" as you say it. You can't play fast and easy with lexicography. -- Evertype·✆ 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the free lecture, that was implicit in what I wrote, and it is simple. If you can find an earlier reference, then it blows Dee out, as first referenced use. Quite obviously we cannot say it was in use before that, or there would be a citation available. Otherwise we go with Dee. Tfz 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dee is the first use recorded and used in a political context Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Þjóðólfr you've violated the 1RR on this article. I suggest you revert yourself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

John Dee was an occultist not a statesman; ergo, he appears to have used the term in a metaphysical sense and not imperialistic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Says which WP:RS? Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

His article describes him as an astroger, mathematician, occultist, but not a statesman, hence one has to be prudent when describing him as an advocate of British Imperialism in the political sense that we know it today. England was not ready to challenge the might of Spain in 1577.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an extract from the Oxford DNB biography of John Dee which I've got through my uni account. It is clear that he was an imperialist, and about when he became an advocate of it: 'From about 1570, however, he emerges, both in manuscript and print, as the advocate of a policy for strengthening England politically and economically, and for imperial expansion into the New World. The first survivor of these manuscript tracts, Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis (1570), perhaps a schematic digest of a larger work requested by Dee's friend and patron Edward Dyer, concerns itself with trade, ethics, and national strength. Six years later he began a much more ambitious project, The Brytish Monarchy, of which only the first part, General and Rare Memorials Pertaining to the Perfect Art of Navigation (1577), achieved print, albeit in a limited edition. Another volume of great bulk was to consist of Queen Elizabeth's Tables Gubernautik, but has not survived; a third volume was destroyed, perhaps by its author, while a fourth, Of Famous and Rich Discoveries, remains only in Dee's now very imperfect manuscript. Concurrently with these writings Dee was producing another work, the Brytanici imperii limites of 1576–8 (extant only in a manuscript by another hand).' 86.44.22.65 (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why we like to have multiple sources. (1) If, as this source claims, he advocated "strengthening England politically and economically" before England was unified with Scotland was he talking about a "Brytannicae reipublicae" in the sense of a global empire or an empire within the island of Great Britain? (2) Imperialism as a theory developed in the nineteenth century and is quite a lot more complex than increasing "national strength". I think we'd need a peer review of a source which claims this. (3) The foundations of what would become the British Empire had already been laid, so he certainly wasn't the first to come up with the idea. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we sort these out?

From recent debates we have two hangover issues. Before anyone else gets banned can we resolve them?

1 - The history section is currently at its long term stable position, can we now remove the concensus tag?

2 - The John Dee phrase is currently set at "According to the Oxford English Dictionary[citation needed] the phrase 'British Isles' was first used in 1577 by John Dee, whose writings have been described as being politicised.[15][16]". How about we go with this:

• The first referenced use of 'British Isles' was in 1577 by John Dee (OED citation) whose writings have been described as being politicised.[15][16

--Snowded ^TALK 04:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

1- I would suggest the entire text is removed leaving only the redirect.

2- I believe it was Peter Heylin's work that was described as politicised. Dee has been described as an Imperialist - not least as a result of his coining the term British Empire as well as BI. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to appear contentious, but why doesn't Dee's article describe him as an Imperialist?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Imperialism as a historical theory developed in the 19th century. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I would accept the suggested wording, if the current wording cant be kept or the whole mention of Dee cant be removed from the intro. As long as it points out the OED isnt saying he was the first person to use the term, simply hes the first referenced or cited. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that he is the first referenced or cited; an earlier cite may or may not be discovered. PS Jeanne I am working on a section for the Dee article. Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

He might be the "first referenced or cited" in early modern English, but not in history and not in modern English. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OED etymology not good enough for you? What other citations do you have? --Snowded ^TALK 18:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about my modern English OED which says "British" is not spelt with a 'y' and "isles" has two 's's? It also says that "etymology" is "an account of the origins and the developments in the meaning of a word", not "the previous version of a word but not the versions that preceded that." So if we use your proposed wording it would need to be amended to say something like: "The first referenced use of "British Isles" in early modern English was in 1577 by John Dee..." to make it clear that it's not modern English term and it's not an original use of the term. From the current wording one might think Dee suddenly conjured (geddit?) up this word and introduced it to English. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The OED reference, as with its etymologies for all its words, goes back as far as the word's origins allow, be they 100 years or 1000 years. In this case the entry under "British Isles" makes it clear that the earliest reference to the term is only in 1577. It's referenced, and the reference is from a source which most British people would view as reliable. If you have a better source, present it. Otherwise this is just a charade. 86.44.22.65 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It "goes back as far as the word's origins allow" does it? No. There are plenty of sources (try looking at some of those cited in the article) and even other editions of the OED claim differently: my OED [1] says "Britannia" has Latin origins (actually Greek [2]) and below that, it says "British" has Old English origins. Hardly consistent. And if you want more of the sources try looking around - there's quite a few mentioned at the bottom of this article and quite a lot more on all the related forks. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course the individual words have older origins, but that is not relevant here. You are missing the point entirely. We are talking about the use of two words together - "British" and "Isles". Not Britannia or Insulae Britannicae, but a two-word term in the English language - "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. Remember this? Newcomers to translation sometimes proceed as if translation were an exact science — as if consistent, one-to-one correlations existed between the words and phrases of different languages... Language evolves. Etymology is not about the "first" use of a term in a given dialect, it's an account of the origins and the developments in the meaning of a word. Even a cursory glance at a dictionary shows how English incorporates words from many different languages. Do you not see the irony in saying we must focus on "a two-word term in the English language" when the first word has a Greek root?

The second point, which you're missing entirely, is that early modern English is not modern English. If you include that then why do you not include middle or old English? Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Because "Brytish Iles" does not need translating into "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus with one dissenter. Given that the consensus is cited via the OED and the argument against is a form of OR I think this settles it? --Snowded ^TALK 16:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I hardly think there's a consensus when only two editors are discussing this properly. I'm very tempted to put a "dubious" tag on the sentence: (1) The OED I have on my shelf says it has Old English roots (2) Other OED editions suggest Peter Heylin was the first to use it in 1621. (3) Various c16 maps (e.g. reproduced above) use it before Dee appeared, even if they are in medieval Latin. We can compromise by putting caveats in to explain why you think it belongs in the intro (which would be very messy because you would have to address all three points I've just made) or you can move it to the etymology section and put it in order. If an article disagrees with its intro then there's clearly something wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

None of those points are relevant - (1) refers to individual words, not the two-word phrase; (2) has been superseded by the Dee citation (see earlier talk); (3) in Latin, not English. All those points can be discounted, and Snowded is correct. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) You're asserting that the distinction is significant. (2) Yes, but clearly there's a question mark hanging over the reliability of a source which relies on Wikipedia editors to provide information. (3) Yes, scholars across Europe spoke medieval Latin so this should not be a surprise. Why is this translation into a vernacular tongue being accorded special significance? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(1) Yes. (2) Citations have been provided. (3) Because "British Isles", the English language term, is the term which this article is about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you can't say that people have to discuss the issue to your satisfaction in order to have an opinion. This really is a simple issue and I have asked for a review of this (and the issue below) to see if we can proceed to make the change. --Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a simple issue then this talk page wouldn't have 30 archives. And yes, you're entitled to an opinion, which you often supply, but it would be more helpful if you engaged in a discussion of sources and their usage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have Wiki-Ed you just don't like it and I'm really not interesting in constantly repeating the same points. l There is far too much of that on this page and the BI related pages in general. Its tedious. For most editors here the OED seems definitive (Although I see you have been lobbying. Oh, by the way please layoff the snide comments they are uncalled for.--Snowded ^TALK 22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the wiki-stalking eh? And you're right, I don't like subjective synthesis. You may have noticed that repeating the same points doesn't make them correct. This sentence has been debated again and again for six months. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have a distressing habit of attacking editors when you get frustrated over content issues. Please stop it. I've left comments on Tharky's page so he is on watch. Its Wikistalking if I track down all your edits and reverse them or similar.--Snowded ^TALK 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you start making condescending remarks don't be surprised if you get the same back. Wikistalking is following someone around and watching what they're doing; adding comments or reverting their edits simply announces it to the rest of us. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In truth, it's impossible to ever know who created the term British Isles. Reliable sources is the next best thing. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, yes, but we have multiple reliable sources. The argument is over the framing criteria used to determine which one is correct. Some are looking at the origins of the term, some are looking at what they think is the most relevant development in its history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

If multiple sources dispute each other, then they would be un-reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. It's entirely possible to have two reliable sources presenting differing perspectives on the same topic so long as each side is represented proportionately (as per WP:WEIGHT). But this is not about the weighting of sources; this is about neutrality, specifically selective citing and making something more important than NPOV would present. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

⬅We have a reliable source which supports the wording suggested above, with one dissenting voice. From the dialogue above I think we have consensus (or at least as far as we can). There is not citation yet for any alternative --Snowded ^TALK 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be time for an RfC on the neutrality of including this phrase in the intro. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested changes also. It looks like a consensus to me too. --HighKing (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear i would rather the current wording on the article than the suggested change. Although the suggested change is far better than what we had for over a month previously which was misleading and inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the intent of the phrase "whose writings have been described as being politicised"? It seems to me to be to be implying that he was also using "British Isles" in a "politicised" way. In other words, the article is taking the following position:

• Premise 1: John Dee used the term "British Isles". (verifiable)
• Premise 2: John Dee's writings have been described as politicised. (verifiable)
• Conclusion: John Dee used "British Isles" in a politicised way.

NO!! This is synthesis: "putting together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If it is not making such a claim, then why is the article even mentioning that John Dee's writings have been described as "politicised"? The sentence should simply read: "The first referenced use of 'British Isles' was in 1577 by John Dee (OED citation)", unless anyone can put forward a reference that explicitly discusses Dee's usage of the term British Isles. And in that case, the sentence would read something like ..."whose usage of the term has been described as politicised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about we use this reference then? John Dee The Limits of the British Empire. It states The book shows that Dee was an important propagandist of empire, that English antiquarianism was used to practical purpose, and that the legal foundations of the empire were not based solely on the indigenous, common law. --HighKing (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is it making the claim regarding Dee's use of the term "British Isles"? Again, it is engaging in synthesis to draw that conclusion if the reference itself makes no such claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, in David Armitage's The Ideological Origins of the British Empire (p.106) is an extensive discussion about Dee's 'concern to establish the legality of Elizabeth's claims to the islands of the northern Atlantic ....' This leaves no doubt that Dee was on an ideologically imperialist mission when he used the term "British Isles". 86.44.22.65 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm repeating myself for the third time now. The reference does not explicitly make the same claim that the proposed sentence is clearly implying. See my premise 1/premise 2/conclusion outline above. You are merely substituting premise 2 for a similar one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that in the absence of a citation linking the two phrases we go with RedHat's suggestion above, removing the implied linkage to Dee's politics. At the same time the above cited material is added into the Dee article so there is a clear context and we should pipelink to the Dee article. On a strict interpretation it is OR to link the two statements (although there are worst examples in the Wikipedia and I don;t think there is any real question that he used the phrase in pursuit of that agenda.). Thatt gives us a clear consensus on first cited use, provides the context of John Dee through the pipelink and allows us to move on. --Snowded ^TALK 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That just leaves readers wondering who John Dee is. It would read much better if John Dee had some sort of description (ie. Saint George, Patron Saint of England or John Major, former Prime Minister of the UK, etc.). I don't believe it's necessary to state that his writing is politicized, but I do believe a context should be established for John Dee. What about "John Dee, a noted 16th century scientist, magician, and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I"? HighKing (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with removing that phrase about his writings being described as politicised and replacing it with just a description of who this John Dee guy was which is far more helpful and useful to the reader allowing them to form their own opinions about the guys motives. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacing the "politicised writings" clause with an explanation of who Dee was sounds like a good idea to me. And as Snowded says, the newly found references can go into the Dee article if they aren't there already. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We would not David Icke as a TV presenter when decribing his later writings. Likewise it would be misleading to describe Dee as a consultant to QEI as he was not at the time. Dee made the comments wearing his "Imperialist" hat. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

In the 16th century the term Imperialist referred to those who supported or formed part of the Holy Roman Empire. Imperialism in relation to Britain derives from the 19th century as another editor corrected ponted out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

If clarity is needed, I would suggest British Imperialist - Dee did after all coin the term "British Empire" Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No he didn't. The first record of its use that has come down to us is by Thomas Twyne when he used the term in 1573 in his book Breuiary of Britayne, 4 years before Dee's work. I'll amend the British Empire suitably. Bill Reid | (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference? Could you maybe quote what Thomas said here? --HighKing (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Double checking - H. Llwyd was author of Breuiary of Britayne; and Thomas Twyne was the English translator? Anyway, I concede Dee did not coin the phrase; however he still has the first recorded use, in English, of BE. Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Twyne was the author and Llwyd was the translator. Highking, the source is the OED; the tranlation is Breuiary of Britayne f. 92, Caduanne also, who from prince of Gwynedh, became Kynge of the Britaynes, and his sonne Cadwalla..whilst the British Empyre was in decayinge. --Bill Reid | (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dee was English not British as the Union had not yet occurred in 1577, hence referring to him as a British Imperialist is not entirely accurate, although it's an improvement on the single word Imperialist, which as I mentioned referred solely to the Holy Roman Empire in Dee's lifetime.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd always thought of him as Welsh. Daicaregos (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

His article says he was born in London of Welsh parentage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) It's great to see this discussion has become a little more active. Can I just clarify that we have agreed that (a) labelling his writing as politicised is synthesis and (b) the sentence was included because it was believed to be politicised? If so, can we progress to the issue of neutrality, specifically selective citing and assigning undue significance to a verified source? If this sentence belongs anywhere it belongs in the (rewritten) etymology section, sitting alongside other developments in the history of the term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

...er...no. A modicum of academic research shows that the content of Dee's work was "politicised". Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, his work might be generally, but that doesn't mean this particular phrase that he used is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite. It has been established that Dee's work was politicised. But that is a matter for the John Dee article. This article is about the term "British Isles" and unless one or more references are brought forward (via a modicum of academic research or otherwise) which discuss Dee's usage of the term British Isles then there is nothing further to say about John Dee in the article. Also I agree that this sentence belongs in the eytomology section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed "necessarily" to "specifically" as this is more accurate, pending resolution of the wording. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Name in Welsh

User:Mister Flash reverted my change, which had been discussed previously at Talk:British Isles#John Dee first mention issue, here and above at about line 1,107 (!!). I have asked on his talk page for an explanation. The only reason I made that edit was to shorten, without changing the sense in any way, the information provided by User:Enaidmawr which explained aspects of the terminology in Welsh, and the detail of which is not appropriate to that point on the main page.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Enaidmawr gives a very full and logical explanation of how the term could be used in Welsh but surely at the moment it remains WP:OR until verifiable citations for its inclusion in article space are found. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but it is a corrected version (by a Welsh speaker) of what was previously not only also unverified but (more importantly?) incorrect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, An Bhreatain Bheag ( Little Britain) has been the Irish name for Wales for at least 1500 years. The common Irish surname, Breathnach, is 'Walsh' or 'Welsh' in English. This would fit in with User:Enaidmawr's history and cast more doubt on modern claims that Ireland was some "Little Britain" historically. Welsh is simply an Old English name for 'foreigner' (O.E. Welisc). It is ultimately cognate with the word 'Walloon' in modern-day Belgium. 193.1.172.145 (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It appeared that some useful material was removed with the edit - Historically, Ynys Prydain had the principal meaning of 'territory of the Brythons', roughly equivalent to Roman Britannia (for this use of Welsh ynys in the sense "land, realm", compare Latin insula). Similarly, 'Prydain' ("Britain") was interchangeable for 'Ynys Prydain' and had the same meaning. Granted, the paragraphs need a bit of tidying up, but not to the extent of removing useful stuff. Another thing was there was no real discussion; about an hour or so from the debate opening to the change being made. Anyway, I thought we were on WP:BRD as a matter of course, just to ensure discussion. No worries, if you want to put it back and take the discussion from that point I won't revert again. Mister Flash (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No probs, but I don't want to get blocked. The material I deleted doesn't seem to me relevant to this article, as it just refers to the one island rather than the "isles" plural. As I read the policy, you would need to self-revert. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I was just going to self revert but was met with an incredibly stupid "in your face" CAUTION about reverting other editors' work. Looks like my revert wouldn't qualify but what the hell. Stuff the article if that's what it's got down to. Mister Flash (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest posting a request on SheffieldSteel's talk page. He is doing the right thing by the article but is more than reasonable. --Snowded ^TALK 16:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake! If we're all too frightened to revert something when there is agreement on it things have gone too far. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of this article and the edit wars we just have to live with it for a bit. Its a lot better than the grief of edit wars between groups who will not compromise. I placed a request for comment on SheffieldSteel's talk page a few minutes ago. --Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it, that ya'll want reverted? GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see now. PS: I thought this article was under a 1RR restriction, but I see it's under full restriction. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will not sanction any editor who makes an edit based on consensus reached through the bold-revert-discuss process.

If a revert leads to a discussion and a consensus, then this editing restriction has worked. Conversely, if editors feel they can't make an edit that they all agree on, then it hasn't, presumably because I haven't explained well enough, and I apologise for that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that SS. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

This section is currently a bit of a mess. I think it should draw from this article which seems to be moderately comprehensive and use a few headings to describe the evolution of the term through the ages. I would suggest keeping the first sentence (The term derives from the adjective British and the plural of the noun isle.) and then breaking up the remainder and inserting headings thus:

• Greek exploration

Original Greek naming and link to Britain (name)

• Roman conquest

Classical Latin derivation and usage of Britannia (etc) linking to article.

• Anglo-Saxon conquest

Old English derivations and usage by Bede and King Alfred etc.

• Norman conquest

Derivations via Old French and Medieval Latin linking closely to:

• Modern usage

Describing how fifteenth and sixteenth century geographers, scholars and John Dee returned the term to vernacular usage. It could also explain the history of the controversy at this point.

• Welsh usage

It's not clear how this fits in or why it has been included at all given certain editors' insistence that only early modern English and after is relevant. It might have a place, but only if it's tied in.

I also wonder whether "etymology" should really sit at the top of the article on a geographical area while "geography" and "geology" sit half way down the page. I'm guessing it's probably not worth trying to change that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections if the material is cited as etymology rather than been a collection of references to "British" and "Islands". The evolution through the ages would also need citation (from whenever I make no comment on your categories) I don't see why the welsh is there to be honest provided the correct welsh equivalent is given along with other non-English languages. I also agree that it would be better further down in the article. --Snowded ^TALK 23:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It would not need to do much more than link to the "Britain (name)" article - there is no need in this article to go into the etymology of "Britain" / "British" in any more detail than is absolutely necessary - and it would probably be confusing if this were to be attempted. This article is specifically about the origins and use of the two word English language term, "British Isles". I agree that the Welsh ref is not absolutely necessary - my previous comments on that were simply to correct earlier misunderstandings. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says this article is "specifically about the origins and use of the two word English language term"? The intro says it is a geographical term and etymology would cover the origins as well as the development of that geographical term. I'll draw together some of the material in other articles at the weekend. It seems to have been forked off at some point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute

Please be advised that I have nominated the above-named article for deletion. Please comment on the AfD Talk page (follow links from the AfD tag on the article or go to the log page here). MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dee, "whose writings have been described as politicised"

I have gone ahead and removed this phrase, given that it constitutes synthesis and noone has put forward a reference to show otherwise. To recap, the problem is the unverified claim that the sentence is blatantly implying by sticking two verified claims together:

• Premise 1: John Dee used the term "British Isles". (reference verifies this)
• Premise 2: John Dee's writings have been described as politicised. (reference verifies this)
• Conclusion: John Dee used "British Isles" in a politicised way (NO!! This is synthesis: reference does not make this claim).

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If one discounts general ignorance, which I accept is a major issue on the part of many, there is simply no other way of using the term "British Isles" other than in a politically incorrect way. Þjóðólfr (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ironic. Try clicking on the linked section heading below. For 99.04% of the world's population it is not a political term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that statistic? Nuclare (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No. It's original research. I made it up based on the population of Ireland vs (the "general ignorance" of) the population of the rest of world. It could conceivably be inaccurate by as much as 0.01 or 0.02%. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

The question has to be asked; in an article about a major geographical entity such as this one, why is half the lede paragraph devoted to a squabble about naming, especially when we already have a complete article about said squabble? This could be covered in a single sentence, if it should even be in the lede at all. Black Kite 14:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure if this article were under something like Atlantic Archipelago you would be one of the first to want to impose "British Isles" in the lede. You can't have it all your own way. Unless of course you will be happy with the article being renamed in accordance with NPOV and the words "British Isles" given a mere mention in the lede? (hold that apoplexy, if you will). 78.16.89.119 (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Just like to point out that it is named by the standards of the common English language phrase for the items in question. Yes some people in Ireland don't like the name, well documented if not quantified, but the rest of the world uses the term as well plus people in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 17:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting political PoVs accompanied by edit wars, is why. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm completely aware of the conflicting PoVs, I'm wondering why something so trivial is in the lede rather than in a separate paragraph, that's all. Oh yeah - same answer. Anyway, I propose to move all apart the sentence explaining that there is a naming dispute to a separate paragraph per WP:UNDUE. Please discuss here. Black Kite 14:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the Dee sentence out of the squabble sentence, since - per my post above - its presence there was part of a synthetic argument, ie no reference supports the claim it was blatantly implying - and after removing the synthesis, it no longer belongs in that paragraph at all. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article gives too much mention of the dispute too. The single first sentence of the 2nd para should suffice. --HighKing (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll can do as ya wish, I'm quite neutral, when it comes to this article's content. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you can't "do as you wish" - even if it is the 12th of July. This was a major change made when Irish people were off at GAA matches and when the Dublin wikipedians are celebrating. The matches are over now so watch this one explode. I've reverted it to the agreed version. GoodDay, I get the impression that you are more "neutral on the side of the British" than neutral per se, but whatever. 78.16.173.206 (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that you're scared to create an account & sign in. But, I guess we all have our concerns about others, eh? Anyways, remove/add/re-arrange the naming dispute, whatever ya'll want. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: The so-called "British Isles" is by no means a "major geographical entity" unless of course you are patriotically-minded British and haven't travelled much. It's a big world out there. 78.16.173.206 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 78, stop being so condescending; after all, none of us here Wikipedia are required to produce our passports to show we've actually left our places of birth.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

PPS: The fact that the vast majority of the people in one of the two states which make up what (certain) British people still term the "British Isles" reject the term - as does their government - is sufficient to place this rejection at the top of this article. In fact, Irish objections to this hegemonic term merit the entire article being renamed under Wikipedia NPOV. Spot a compromise when you see one. Otherwise this article is going to get much worse, and much more political (if that's possible).78.16.173.206 (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder which regular contributor here is hiding behind an anonymous IP address to engage in edit warring. I've added "original research" tags to the reverted sentences. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should run a sweepstake. Does Sheffieldsteel revert the reversion when he bans them? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

By my calculations the Encyclopædia Britannica devotes some 40% of its entire article to said squabble. Mount Everest is a major geographical entity; Australia is a major geographical entity. The British Isles are a human political construct. Þjóðólfr (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure that's exactly what Pytheas thought when he came up with the name. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Except he didn't. Another urban myth to try to avoid the fact that "British Isles" was a term originally coined and used to denote the area "owned" by the British crown. Get your facts right. Back then, places weren't named as we do these days. They were known for the names of the tribes that inhabited the area. So Pytheas was talking about the tribe, not naming the land - he referred to the Pretanni, therefore the Islands of the Pretanni, etc. And as for a reliable source! Pytheas described his travels in a work that has not survived; only excerpts remain, quoted or paraphrased by later authors, most familiarly in Strabo's Geographica, Pliny's Natural History and passages in Diodorus of Sicily's history. Most of the ancients, including the first two just mentioned, refer to his work by his name: "Pytheas says ....". And the last point - in his day, there was no such thing as the concept of "British". Can we put an end to the oft-misquoted "Pytheas" phrases please? --HighKing (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find there was no such thing as a "British crown" in 1577. ðarkuncoll 11:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicken and egg argument. The phrase was coined during a period of imperialism while the concept of "Britishness" was created in it's current form. Perhaps the concept of the "British crown" is a better phrase. It's a common term to encapsulate a concept. See here for a remarkably similar usage. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course the sources disagree with everything else - I've pointed Highking to several on the Britannia talk page where he's happily pretending they don't exist and inventing a new history of the term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Methinks the blinkered approach to this topic is all yours. For your information, most of the above was taken from the article on Pytheas, as is the suggested text you labelled as synthesis. Perhaps you should engage in some reading and research rather than personal attacks. If you spent more time discussing content rather than editors, you'd have less than half to say but twice as good. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Well having pointed us to the source we can all see the synthesised bit. The claim that I'm "blinkered" and don't read widely is quite amusing: your evidence is a paragraph (from Wikipedia) based on a single 118-year old source; I've put forward four independent verifiable secondary sources written in the last decade. There's not much point trying to discuss content with editors who don't read the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not claim that you were "blinkered". Nor did I say that you don't read widely. Please don't twist things to support what you would like them to say instead of what they actually say. Just like the references I suppose... --HighKing (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe High-King was referring to Henry VII's British origins? ;) Well, a long shot I guess. I remember my tour-guide of Ferns castle described the Norman invaders of the 1170s as "British" ... I knew what she meant.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

λιαέκληδια! Þjóðólfr (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How does that translate into English?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to Black Kite's query is simple: wikipedia's ideological demographics. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree entirely: "wikipedia's ideological demographics" alone are patently determining that this article is still under this absurdly jingoistic title "British Isles" eighty-seven years after British rule was ended in most of Ireland (by popular demand). It is time to get over your loss of empire and the traditional ideological position held by most British people towards the Irish people. It's unbecoming for an avowedly progressive people to be carrying on with this petty-minded aggression - but indubitably aggression just the same time - against its neigbour. There's no need for it. 78.16.89.119 (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

We can change the name of the article just as soon as it stops being the most common term for the items under mention. And just as soon as every person in the British Isles stops using it, and internationally. However it's widely referenced that it is still in common usage, even in Ireland. Canterbury Tail talk 11:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

You can gut the article out (as far as I'm concerned), but the title stays. Weither t's current or past-tense, it was used. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Truism

"The term derives from the adjective British and the plural of the noun isle.". What a great definition! Presumably the term "United Kingdom" derives from the word "united", meaning "joined together", and "kingdom", the lands ruled by a king? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed this sentence. Although this first struck me as a truism, which is grounds enough for removal, on further reflection it strikes me as deliberately implying something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree - it wasn't referenced. --HighKing (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The proper way of putting it is that English "British Isles" was introduced in Early Modern English, reflecting the Greek name αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι (the Prettanic Isles) in classical geography, ultimately named for the Priteni an early Celtic tribe of Ireland.

I don't see why the Irish make such a fuss about the term "British", seeing that the English ruling elite of the Early Modern period self-deprecatingly chose an indigenous Irish tribal name to refer to their empire. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's "some" of the British who are making the fuss about this article. If you read the archives it took 'eight long years' to even get Britain and Ireland mentioned as one of the alternate names for the group. It's more about Wikipedia:V, in case you didn't know. Tfz 09:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I am getting the impression you are part of the problem here, not of the solution. I would deny that "Britain and Ireland" is a name for the archipelago, but as you say that is a question of WP:V. My main point, if you can be bothered to read my original comment, was that the name "British Isles" derives from the Greek Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι (the Prettanic Isles), the earliest known name given to the archipelago. --dab (𒁳) 06:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll

As this got reverted by an anonymous editor, can people please indicate whether they would be OK with making the following changes with a support or oppose? I propose, to prevent sockpuppetry, that votes from anon editors or accounts with less than a week's editing history are not counted. I hope that people can put petty squabbles aside and think of the policy of WP:V here (if references can be found for the below then all the information can stay). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of order here. "The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick" has not provided us with his name, address or telephone number. He, like most people here, is anonymous. Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1) Remove the phrase "whose writings have been described as politicised" - on the basis that, without a source reaching the same conclusion, what this statement is implying (that the term itself is politicised) constitutes synthesis.
  • Support The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportWiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Actually, Dee has been described as an imperialist, and I'd much prefer that easily referenced term. But, failing that, 'politicised' is an acceptable euphemism in order to placate the Wikipedia editors who fall into that WP:IDONTLIKEIT category on this recurring point.

78.16.158.187 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Support unless a citation is found (hope we will apply the same standards elsewhere) --Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Good idea BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support the removal of the current text from the lede but it's important to see elsewhere an explanation to give some context to Dee's creation of the term. --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's amazing the sensitivities that can be tweaked with some "editors". Tfz 12:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
• Expand. Proposed Text

The earliest recorded use in English of the terms Brytish Iles was by John Dee in his 1576 General and rare memorials pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation, the first volume in an unfinished series planned to advocate the rise of imperial expansion. Dee was refering to Pletho's Reform of the Peloponnese when he stated.

The syncere Intent, and faythfull Aduise, of Georgius Gemistus Pletho, was, I could..frame and shape very much of Gemistus those his two Greek Orations..for our Brytish Iles, and in better and more allowable manner.

Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• 2) Move the "Dee first usage" sentence to etymology - discussions of first usage belong better in a section about the origin of the phrase than they do in the introduction to the topic itself.
  • Support The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportWiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Dee is the first recorded use of the term; Dee was an imperialist who reimagined a "British Empire" covering what he called the "British Isles". As such, the term's politics are, from the outset, deeply political. If you can find a reference to the "British Isles" before John Dee, why haven't you produced it? Trying to censor one of the most relevant facts about this term because you don't want the political origins of the term to be highlighted is really breaching NPOV and shouldn't be entertained here at all. 78.16.158.187 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First use is important given the issues on this article, it should stay --Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I have always disliked Dee being mentioned in the intro. Does the article on Europe say who was first to use the name "Europe"? i think not. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support If an etymology section is created, then no need for it in the lede --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First usage is simply the most informative snippet of information in the whole article. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose First use of the term is first use. What's wrong with that, it's an interesting fact I would have thought. Tfz 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• 3) Remove the sentence "the term derives from the adjective British and the plural of isle" - at best (a very naive best), this is a truism (phrases do not "derive" from the words that constitute the phrase), while at worst it is a rather sneaky form of synthesis, akin to saying "Sea of Japan" is derived from the terms "sea - a body of water", "of - a preposition indicating possession", "Japan - a country in East Asia".
  • Support The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportWiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support NO idea why its there get rid of it --Snowded ^TALK 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Unreferenced. --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose It does derive from British "political ownership" of the islands from about 1600 to 1922. Tfz 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Expand There is a very interesting point that has not yet been made. Isle and Island have two distinct meanings and, believe it or not, two seperate etymologies: one is derived from Latin; one from Anglo Saxon . The only instance where large islands are refererd to as Isles is in the use of the term BI. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've struck out the anon IP from the same "Dublin Block C Dundrum Business Park" range that made the reversion in the article (against the rules). Log in if you want to participate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your edit against the established consensus about John Dee was against the rules, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good old misrepresentation of your own personal history in this article, never mind of the real history of this term. Also, if you could give the Wikipedia rule which now bans IP addresses then that would be nice. Until you do, I have restored my comments and removed your vandalism. 78.16.158.187 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a frequent practice when there is a risk of sockpuppetry (as there is with here and with you, as you have decided to revert the article under the cloak of anonymity under rules that you are well aware of) to conduct straw polls where participation is limited to established editors. In fact, I wonder if an IP check might be in order. From your tone I wonder if you might be a certain editor currently under a one month ban? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather think you should do all your checks before waltzing around the place making allegations of sockpuppetry and such things when it is patently clear that I am all the 78s in this discussion. 78.16.158.187 (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Striking an anon IP participation is *really* not allowed - you didn't do this, did you? Making allegations of sockpuppetry is serious and in breach of WP:AGF. You should really either file for a sock check or desist. Much as I share your dislike for anon IP addresses, there is nothing against anon IP addresses participating, and it is usually up to whoever closes the poll to evaluate arguments regardless of whether it's an anon IP address or an established user. This isn't a headcount or a vote. And you can't set up a poll and decide yourself to exclude anon IP address participation. --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently under some ad hoc "rules" which I disagree with but which nevertheless prohibit reversions of other editors' edits. An anon IP here has flouted those rules and should have been blocked by now. The only reason that they have not been blocked is because the admin which instated the rules seems to be off WP for a few days. Given that fact, it was fair enough, in my opinion, to state at the outset that only established editors at this page !vote (there are enough established editors here, on both sides). And sure enough, said rule-breaking IP returned here to !vote. That was why I struck out the comments. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

'General observation', there seems to be a snow-ball effect occuring on all 3 straw-polls. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Results(?)

We're never going to get agreement from everyone in this article but it seems to me that:

• 1) arguably we have majority consensus to implement as proposed but first we should consider Þjóðólfr's wording as an alternative
• 2) does not have support (though if Þjóðólfr's wording was implemented, this is far too much info for the intro)
• 3) does have support, and the two objectors have not provided any references to demonstrate that it is not OR.

Therefore I am going to be bold and implement 3 and leave 1 and 2 for future discussion. Even though that means a "revert of a revert", I have taken it to talk and waited for replies from all parties. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that you have a majority on all points. It's 6:2 on the first point and 5:3 on the second; where it's pretty clear that the opposers would describe black as white and white as black to get their way. I won't delete the material from the intro, but I will add it to the etymology section (which is a bit thin at the moment) and then we can compare the information in situ and decide where it sits best. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel as though there is a clear majority on all three points, but there are a lot of bad feelings here and am concious of the fact that "Wikipedia is not a democracy". So I just wanted to show that valid objections aren't being ignored. (Valid, in the sense that when it's a question of original research, it isn't just more original research being used as a counterargument). There is far too much of an "us and them" atmosphere on this page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's avoidable when (members of) one party want to delete the article. However, I've added some detail to the etymology section from other articles covering the same topic. I think it has enough references to keep the revisionists busy for a little while. Let's see what they say... Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's odd - I can't see anyone calling for the article to be deleted. Who wants to delete the article? --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1 and 3 should be implemented right away as the polls clearly favour those options. We should have a more wider dicussion on proposal two as its closer and involves a new section. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A Straw Poll is non binding and is not a substitute for Consensus. My understanding from "The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick" is that this was is the start of a new attempt to build consensus. If users are now trying to use the poll to bypass consensus what was the point? Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"disputed territory"

What genius added this article to Category:Disputed territories? The arguable existence of a naming dispute doesn't imply that the territory of the British Isles is disputed. Disputed by whom? --dab (𒁳) 08:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read this article, British Isles naming dispute. Tfz 09:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, omg the things some people will do. :| The British Isles is in no way a disputed territory, if you think the fact a British Isles naming dispute article exists does justify it then we clearly need to press ahead with changing that article title or merging it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The category should include only those territories listed at List of territorial disputes. Is "BI" included? No, but you do find out something new every day - disputes over the boundaries in Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle are included, as well as Rockall. But IMHO those don't justify that category being used for this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is funny that nobody noticed it till now, Tfz added it way back in November 2008. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a "good" category for inclusion, and it is a disputed area/territory. I'll be studying this to see if it needs to be added back or not. Does the category only include areas whose sovereignty is disputed, or names, or both? They are the key questions now. Tfz 13:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The category page says: "The main article for this category is List of territorial disputes". That article lists disputes involving states that recognize each other; disputes between a state and its subnational entities, or between subnational entities; disputes involving parties that each have some territory under control but do not recognize each other; formally frozen disputes (including Antarctica, lol); and disputes between a state and a secessionist group with no territorial control. None of those appear to apply to the territory described as "British Isles". Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A new category, Category;Disputed names, could be inaugurated to link the various articles at issue. Tfz 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tfz, adding the "disputed territories" category to this article implies the claim that the British Isles (the entire archipelago) are claimed by at least two states. "Some regional boundaries within the BI are disputed" is not sufficient (or you could add the category to Europe on the same grounds). A naming dispute isn't a territorial dispute, so I don't see why you should ask me to read British Isles naming dispute. We already have Category:Geographical naming disputes, which is properly found at British Isles naming dispute, not here, because this is the article about the islands, not the article about the dispute. If you want to discuss the dispute, it is my turn to please go to British Isles naming dispute. --dab (𒁳) 06:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with Dbachmann removing the very sensible category, Category:Geographical naming disputes. There are many references that the dispute does exist, and the encyclopedia is supposed to educate, and it's not supposed to push a particular POV. The cat must go back! Tfz 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that Dbachmann hasn't responded to my input after his removal the removal of Category:Geographical naming disputes, even though s/he's editing today. What's the position now under the WP:BRD process? I now intend to put it back shortly. Tfz 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Since Dbachmann reverted your addition of the category, the right thing to do is either discuss it here and try to gain consensus support for your position, or accept that while British Isles naming dispute is a naming dispute, British Isles is not. The wrong thing to do would be to revert again. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting to understand it now, can be quite powerful. If nobody discusses then why should Dbachmann prevail? As many can play the 'ignore game'. Tfz 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed territory? There's no dispute over the islands which the BI term claims to cover. I know of no fighting between the UK & republic. GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you read? It doesn't read "Disputed territory". Tfz 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with British Isles being included under 'Disputed territories'. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about Category:Geographical naming disputes. Tfz 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, cool. GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's about Dee again

The text currently reads "The earliest citation of the phrase 'British Isles' in the Oxford English Dictionary[15] is dated 1577 in a work by John Dee, whose writings (though not specifically his use of this phrase) have been described as being politicised.[original research?][16][17]". This is insane. If there are two citations for it being described as politicised, how on earth can it be OR? My understanding of OR is that it is an assertion unsupported by reliable external citation. There are two. Reductio ad absurdum. I'm deleting the OR tag. If someone wants to put it back, they had better produce convincing logic. --Red King (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that this article is the subject of BRD [well it would, wouldn't it] and I risk inadvertently failing the revert rule. I can't see in the mess above who it was who attached the OR tag. Would he or she please explain why they did so? --Red King (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It is discussed in detail above, under sections 17 and 21. Synthesis is original research. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the root question is whether this writing by Dee is politicised. If it is, a source needs to be found saying so. If other writings of his are politicised, but not this piece, then describing Dee's writing as politicised at this point in the article constitutes either original research by synthesis (express or implied) or flat-out misrepresentation of the source. I believe this is why Thyodolf (sp?) suggested a different source above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

indeed. Dee is mentioned here simply because he happens to be the first attestation cited in the OED. People interested in the question of whether Dee's writings may or may not have been politicized are welcome to elaborate on it at our John Dee article, but the point it is patently WP:UNDUE in the WP:LEAD(!) of our British Isles article. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is patently undue why does the OED even bother with an etymology section? The OED runs to only a few lines; yet this includes first usage which is an important aspect of the subject of the article per WP:Lead. Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

He was reflecting the Greek αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι (the Prettanic Isles), ultimately named for the Celtic tribe of the Pretani - This does not ring true to me Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

νῆσοι does this equal Isles or Islands or can we pick and choose according to the POV we want to put forward? Þjóðólfr (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bank on it being first usage. It's just the earliest instance the OED researchers have found. Incidentally, while Dee may have been an "imperialist", the term "British Isles" would have nothing to do with that. Both "Impire" and "British" were poorly naturalised terms of the time, both being classical neologisms and neither meant what they meant in Age of Imperialism of the 19th and 20th century. Most importantly, usage of the term had nothing to do with Ireland or "British" (i.e. English) claims to the island. If it carried any "imperialist" subtext, it would have been directed towards Scotland, the only part of the "British Isles" not under London rule at the time. As it is clear most of the editors have limited understanding of the context, I strongly advise editors here adhere strongly to the spirit and letter of WP:NOR. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with you from Most importantly... onwards. The Justification of London rule was precisely what Dee was advocating when he used the term: Elizabeth had passed 40 and was childless hence Scotland was on the radar. PS Substantial ares of Ireland were not under Elizabeth's control at that time- although there was an obvious intention to change this. The "imperialist" subtext covered the whole region. Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The English crown was sovereign over all Ireland, irrespective of the effectiveness outside of the pale. I really doubt anyone would have used the term British Isles to "justify" English rule in Ireland (why not English Isles, surely?). Justification wasn't needed in any case, as they had been there for around four centuries and the crown was little more unpopular in Ireland than it was in England. You're projecting anachronistic nationalisms, another reason I'm afraid to keep to the letter and spirit of WP:NOR in this article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A stretch too far,"The English crown was sovereign over all Ireland, irrespective of the effectiveness outside of the pale.", according to a British view, indeed. If you want to believe that, it's ok with me;) Tfz 12:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Deacon, how would you square your doubts knowing that Dee, before either the union with Scotland or the conquest of Ireland, chose to use the term British Empire and not English Empire? Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tfz, there was no British view in the 16th century, as no such people existed. I just don't understand why people go launching headlong into topic areas where they just don't know even the most basic things. @ Thj, both words are classicisms. The average 16th century English peasant would probably never heard of the words Empire or Britain; the context is literary, and I'd guess that it's trying to invoke the idea that England is like an independent form of the Roman Empire, "Britain" being the word for the Roman province that preceded the kingdom of England (not that my guesses will ever have any impact on the article). British Isles is a different case and, disappointingly, it's just innocent classicism, like "German Sea" (word used for the North Sea). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@DoP. "there was no British view in the 16th century,", exactly my point. Think Henry Ford would get down to the nitty gritty fairly swiftly! Tfz 12:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me entirely now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just pondering 'views' of histories, that's all, and Henry 'history is more or less bunk' Ford came to mind in a moment of eureka! Tfz 13:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'The English crown was sovereign over all Ireland, irrespective of the effectiveness outside of the pale' - this is ahistorical nonsense. So much for 'not knowing basic things'. The English claimed sovereignty over all Ireland. 'Claimed' is the missing word. There is a world of difference. In reality they didn't even have sovereignty in the towns of the Pale in 1577, the year John Dee is recorded as having used the term "British Isles". When the crown, through its government, started to assert its claim over those towns they erupted in popular protest and recusancy against the crown and the thousands of English soldiers that were in urban garrisons. Indeed in 1577 itself Lord Deputy Henry Sidney had this to say aboiut his difficulties asserting that claim of English sovereignty over the Irish: 'I have great cause to mistrust the fidelity of the greatest number of the people of this country birth of all degrees; they be Papists, as I may well term them, body and soul, for not only in matter of religion they be Romish, but for government they wish change, and to be under a prince of their own superstition.' This was the same year that dozens of the leading gentry of the Pale were thrown in prison for resisting the crown's attempt to tax them to pay for the military. 78.16.58.204 (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Claimed is very bit soft. The English monarch's theoretical lordship over the entire island was recognised and taken for granted by every European ruler and every Irish magnate, Gaelic and Anglo-Irish (a few passing challenges aside). While it is tempting, as you did in your last sentence, to depict any and all hostility to the crown in national terms, taxes and religion caused problems for governments in all kingdoms. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@Deacon, You say there was no British view in the 16th century - Dee is the vey man who set about changing this. His motives were to ingratiate himself with the ruling powers by using that time old method of rewriting history to suit the politics of the day. Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know much about Dee, but you are assuming he invented the term "British Isles". This is pretty unlikely, and he certainly didn't invent the term Britain. In any case, the guys who usually get the credit for getting the concept "Britain" out there are John Mair and James VI of Scotland, in both cases Lowland Scots who had a big political interest in eroding separate Scottish and English identities (nothing to do with Ireland). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, after the accession of James VI, Dee claims to have become the new king's ‘sworne servant’ Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Isle or Island?

Since this question has often been raised, especially by those who wish to dissociate the term British Isles from its Latin antecedent Britanniae Insulae, it is worth repeating that the English word "isle" is derived, via French, from Latin insula. Therefore, in a choice between "isle" and "island", all else being equal, "isle" is the more literal translation, since "island" is an unrelated word derived from Old English. In other words, British Isles is a better translation of Britanniae Insulae than British Islands would be. ðarkuncoll 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The primary definition for both νῆσοι and Insulae is islands. The OED states Isle: Now more usually applied to an island of smaller size - except in established appellations, as ‘the British Isles’. British Islands was the established appellation until well into the 19thC (as can be seen from a search of the Times Database), so where would classical writers have had any notion of British Isles thousands of years before we did? Þjóðólfr (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dee's coining of the phrase "British Isles" was an alternative translation of the Latin and wasn't his attempt to coin a new term to encapsulate the concept of British ownership of lands and seas and legitimize the British crown rule over newly claimed areas? Don't think so.... --HighKing (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Þjóðólfr: you are looking at the current, modern definition of a word, and assuming that always held back in time. It says "now more usually applied...". Which means at one time that wasn't the case. This whole exercise here is very much in danger of flouting OR because - instead of finding a reliable source that discusses the orgins and etymology of the term - editors here are trying to piece it together themselves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Editors are indeed looking at the current, modern definitions of terms and holding out that thay always held back in time. Translating any Classical Greek or Latin term for large Islands as Isles is an example.Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and Highking: that's your theory, which is fine for the talk page - but if you want the article to make that claim, where is the reference to support it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I merely posed a question, not expounded a theory. And it's no more WP:OR than Tharky claiming that Dee was merely translating the Latin and used "Isles" instead of "Islands". I note you don't ask Tharky for a reference. Might I conclude something from that? --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you'd be a bit paranoid if you thought that. I'm merely pointing this out to you because there is a wish on the part of several editors here to make the point in the article that British Isles was first used as propaganda. That's not a problem if we have a reference saying it is. But we don't have a reference, so we shouldn't be making these claims (in the article). If you were merely putting forward your view here and don't intend to put that into the article, then I'm sorry if I misunderstood. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, Dee was a Classical scholar and one of England's foremost cartographers, whereas your theory would imply he was wholly ignorant of the term Britanniae Insulae, revived around 1500 by European mapmakers, which is completely untenable. Furthermore, what, exactly, do you mean by "British crown"? The last British monarch, Owain Glyndŵr, had been dead a century and a half by Dee's time, and the British state (i.e. Wales) extinguished. When Dee used a term such as "British", he was harking back to the legendary rulers described by Geoffrey of Monmouth, see this extract from his diary, for example [3]. ðarkuncoll 11:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My use of the term "British Crown" is in keeping with common usage and meaning of the term. See this book on John Dee for similar usage which states In a series of maps, treatises, and conferences from the 1550s to the 1590s, Dee developed an expansionist program which he called "this British discovery and recovery enterprise". Supporting both the discovery of new lands and the recovery of territories that once arguably belonged to the British crown, Dee gradually claimed for the queen a vast imperial dominion covering most of the seas and much of the land in the Northern Hemisphere. This is the basis for my question above. (BTW, you also, like TRHOPF are confusing a question with putting forward a theory.) But I agree with TRHOPF that if you want to produce a reference to back up your claim, we'd be very happy to take a look. --HighKing (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is, as the OED states, "isle" now generally means a small island, but it clearly didn't in Dee's day, otherwise he wouldn't have used it. This is true even if his motives were political - it would simply make no sense to do so. What possible motive would he have had? And because of this, British Isles is now the established translation. ðarkuncoll 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be made clearer than just saying that it translates as "British Isles", with capitals, and leaving readers under the assumption that the same "name" and "meaning" was in use. I believe using "British Islands" accomplishes that satisfactorily without leading readers to the incorrect conclusion that the term and concept of "British Isles" was around centuries before Dee. --HighKing (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that the Greeks and Romans were not referring to to small isles around Britain and Ireland but the larger islands. Any translation that uses Isles is a modern affection Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Isles" came with Dee, the citations support that. Tfz 12:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I have removed from the Etymology Section:

The first antecedent of the term appears in the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, which described Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai) as a group of islands in the far north-west.¹²

^{1 H.J. Mette, Pytheas von Massalia. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1952, fragment 14, after Cleomedes}

2 Snyder, p. 12.

The reference to Mette's German language work gives the impression that a fragment of Pytheas exists when infact None of Pytheas' writing survive. Snyder p12 simply does not agree with the information for which it is a supposed reference. PS does anyone know the difference between αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι and αἱ Πρεττανικαὶ - Is this a printing error or is Professor Snyder's Greek suspect? Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean you reverted the text without thinking to discuss it first. I've added the word "transcribed" so that the sentence conforms more closely with the sources - try reading Snyder p12 again - in particular the first paragraph (sentence three and four). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at the bloody dates!!! Þjóðólfr (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence came from the article linked directly above it. I copied most of the references over, but that partcular date appears to come from another source I missed. I'll add it in to the correct spot if it makes such a difference. Meanwhile, Snyder is, of course, citing one of several ancient sources who quoted Pytheas and is not being used to support that specific date, but, rather the concept of the voyage producing the name. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel has given you the The Conch. Do you Feel the noose around your neck or are you too thick skinned? Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

...Ergh! Þjóðólfr (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is WP:BRD still in operation around here, and is it working out ok? Tfz 17:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you've decided to draw attention to yourself after your activities today. I've been adding referenced material and you've been deleting it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)There's a detailed discussion taking place on Talk:Britannia on this very subject. In that discussion, a number of sources have been discussed. I believe that this etymology section is flawed as it suggests there is a direct and unassailable link between "Pritani" and "Britannia". This ignores other accounts that suggest that the Romans (by way of Caesar's writings) were the first to substitute the 'P' of "Pretani" to the 'B' of "Britannia" reference to Origins. Also at that time it was normal practice to refer to the land after the inhabitants, and that at the time a tribe called the "Britanni" inhabited areas along the coast See page 31. So while the etymology presented here and in other articles state the Romans coined the term, it incorrectly synthesizes that the only possible way was a slip of the Roman tongue. Perhaps not... --HighKing (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The etymology in the source you provided (and in other sources) says the Romans derived the B-form from the P-form: "it was, he points out, prob Caesar who, for Pretani and Pretania (Latinized forms of the C words), substituted Britanni and Britannia." pg334 There is no synthesis in stating this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Derived is not the same as substituted. --HighKing (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the context; other authors are more specific: "From these words the Romans derived the Latin forms Britannia, Britannus and Britannicus respectively". Snyder pg12. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't see how derived and substituted can mean the same thing depending on context. Can you give me an example? --HighKing (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Substitute a chicken for its egg (the former is derived from the latter). In any case, there is one source (and you know there are more) using the term "derived" and that is the source being cited for this section of this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Nice try though :-) --HighKing (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Belgic origins for the Roman name of the Britanni tribe, and nothing to do with Picts. Tfz 00:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to find a source which explicitly states that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

References

In the Alternative names section we have this statement: A number of publications have abandoned the term ...Likewise, publishers of road atlases such as Michelin, SK Baker, Hallwag, Philip's, Reader's Digest and The Automobile Association (AA) have replaced British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland or Britain and Ireland in their recent maps.

In fact, none of the references point to the term being abandoned. Rather, they indicate current usage. I invite other editors to replace these references with ones that do show changed usage. Failing that, we should adjust the text to refelect current usage only, or delete the sentences in question. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet more synthesis here. Taking the AA reference as an example, it looks like someone has found an atlas from 2003 which says "British Isles", and then a later one which says "Britain and Ireland", and put the two together to make the claim that "The Automobile Association has replaced British Isles with Britain and Ireland in their recent maps". This is synthesis at its best. The same seems to go for the other references. Someone is looking at primary sources and then engaging in original research. Unless we have explicit references saying that these publishers deliberately removed reference to British Isles, no such claims should be made in the article. I have removed the sentence in question. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried making that point a few months ago but it was shot down, didn't have the energy to try explaining it. Yes that's entirely original research, even the National Geographic one the new article doesn't actually make that claim and it's easy to prove they still use the term. The NG one was referring to a vacation guide, not all publications. Canterbury Tail talk 14:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that looks like synthesis and OR; you will first have to prove that the National Geographic maps you are referencing are dated after the National Geographic policy change in 2008. In contrast, there is an explicit reference that National Geographic had changed the plates on its maps from 'British Isles' to 'British and Irish Isles' and indeed maps with the latter term on them. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

... and... HighKing has just reverted, without even so much as bothering to explain on the talk page how it is not OR. I'm adding tags. Yet more tags, to this awful article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A little WP:AGF would go a long way here guys....

I've reverted. The text says that publishers of road atlases have replaced the term "British Isles" with "Great Britain and Ireland", which seems to be supported. Perhaps the text needs some wordsmithing so that it doesn't read as if road atlas publishers belong to the group of publishers that have explicitly "abandoned" the term. Try adding a tag requesting a citation rather than deleting. That makes it easier to put the onus on the disputed claim and to give some time for an interested editor to find a reference or to adjust the text. --HighKing (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate what the problem is with the sentence as it stands. Let's take the AA case as the example, and break down what is happening:

Verifiable claim 1: An atlas was published by the AA in 2003 which referred to "British Isles" on the front cover.

Verifiable claim 2: An atlas was published by the AA later, which referred to "Britain and Ireland" on the front cover.

Claim made in article: The AA has replaced the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland".

No!!! This is pure and utter synthesis. We are taking two isolated observations of two atlases and extrapolating to a general statement that this applies to all atlases published by the AA. This is simply not OK by the policy of No Original Research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And the logic is even worse for the other references. Take S.K. Baker:

Verifiable claim 1: A rail atlas was published in 2004 entitled "Rail Atlas Great Britain and Ireland"

Claim made in article: S.K. Baker has replaced the term "British Isles" with "Great Britain and Ireland".

Erm... what? It's even more ridiculous when we read the product description, penned by the publisher. "The ninth edition of the book was published in 2000 and in the four years since that edition was compiled, much has happened to the railway infrastructure of the British Isles." So S.K. Baker has replaced the term British Isles with Great Britain and Ireland, has it? Really? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So it appears that you are checking the claims now, after you tried to delete them? --HighKing (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The onus was on you to check them as you were adding them back. Please check WP:BURDEN if you are in any doubt about that fact: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.". I had already satisifed myself that the sentence constituted Original Research, I am just pointing out to you, the person who put them back in, why they constitute synthesis. While I'm here, let's do a search on the AA website for the term "British Isles". 63 hits. Sixty three hits? And we are claiming that The AA has replaced the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you pay more attention to WP:BURDEN. Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them. A bit of an own goal there... --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well now HighKing, that is interesting! Should I list the instances where you have put a cite tag on an article without making any attempt to find a source yourself (I'd need a long piece of paper)? We actually have an example today at Cup and ring mark. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it about a certain type of editor that believes it's perfectly OK to make personal attacks a normal part of their editing interactions? Sure - go ahead and produce the list. I predict you'll be unable to. Especially if your example of Cup and ring mark is anything to go by since I produced a reference on the talk page. It's easy to make unsubstantiated claims, but remember that making unsubstantiated claims are a form of ad hominen attacks and you've been warned about this on your Talk page only very recently. --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, it's a shame that you appear to view editing at Wikipedia in terms of scoring personal victories over one another. All I care about is that the policies are being adhered to. I've provided not only a case why it constitutes OR, but also material from the same publishers that contradicts what the sentence is implying. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That's two personal attacks.... Wonder where all the admins have gotten to.... --HighKing (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and 21 hits on the Michelin website for "British Isles". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That Googling is WP:OR, I'm afraid. Don't rely on it too much. The stable version is good. Tfz 15:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In the words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious, man. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No Tfz, the "stable" version is rubbish! It's clear OR and unless you can justify it not being so then I'm afraid the senetences will be removed. I suggest two days to come up with evidence that it's not OR. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the stable version is more reliable than what has replaced it, for instance the complete absence of maps produced by Michelin with the term "British Isles" on them; instead the Michelin Guide to Restaurants, a separate company, is referenced as the source for the use of "British Isles" on the "Michelin" website when the original stable version mentioned the term had been dropped from the maps. That sounds remarkably like synthesis to me. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have also posted on the NOR noticeboard about this. It's concerning that there is such a lack of understanding of what does and does not constitute OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting remark at WP:BURDEN; If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. This should apply to British Isles naming dispute. Although my recent AfD on that article failed, I wonder if further (unbiased) comment could be obtained by posting the issue on the NOR noticeboard? MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not muddy the waters here, MidnightBlueMan... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave that one alone for the time being. MidnightBlue (Talk) 15:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And 42 hits on the website of Philip's atlas publishers. To pick the most relevant one, on the very same page of an atlas entitled "Philip's Britain and Ireland Reference Map" in the description we see "together with a physical map of the British Isles". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

And Zero Hits for the term "British isles" the Automobile association (AA) website. Think this stuff has been done before, read the archives. Tfz 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to comprehend in what way you think that is an answer to the problems first raised. The claim is being made in the article that the AA has dropped the term in its maps, and implying that it has dropped the term altogether. References show that, in the UK, the AA has not dropped the term. Now, if you would like the article to say that the AA does not use the term in its Irish websites, that is a different matter altogether. But it has nothing to do with the problem identified above. And as for the archives, we are are constrained only by policy, not by archives. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your AA ref, as with Philip's are produced for a British audience. It's the 'en.wikipedia.org' , and not the 'brit.wikipedia.org' , it should be remembered. There is a whole new world out there. Tfz 17:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and I happen to live on the other side of it. Your reply suggests you don't understand the problem raised so there's not really much point in discussing further with you. I'll just say to you that if you can find a source that says, explicitly, "the AA has dropped the term British Isles from its maps" then this discussion ends right there. For the record, I don't give a s__t one way or the other, whether they did or they did not. All I care about is that this article reflects what is verifiable, not what editors have deduced from the title of a book. (The AA also haven't published an Atlas of Harry Secombe's Arse Crack - does the absence of such an atlas confirm the claim that there is a deliberate policy on AA's part not to publish atlases of Harry Secombe's Arse Crack?) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Harry was one of natures' gentlemen, but his map is a gentleman of straw. There is a lot of verifiable stuff left out of the article through compromise in the past. The archives are worth a scanning over in parts, although I refrain from asking anyone to read them in their entirety. Tfz 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Your claim that this is a straw man argument only underlines the fact that you are missing the point here. I'm not misrepresenting your position. I am pointing out that there is as much evidence (thus far) for an AA "Secombe policy" as there is for an AA "BI policy". If you are interesting in discussing fallacies, see Affirming the consequent.

1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore, P.

Substituting for P and Q:

1. If the AA implemented a policy to stop using the term "British Isles", then their maps will no longer be entitled "British Isles".
2. We can see, on Amazon, a map entitled "Britain and Ireland".
3. Therefore, the AA implemented a policy to stop using the term "British Isles".

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a stable version for months. There are thousands of references and citations out there. What to put in or out has been discussed so many times before, and will happen again no doubt. I don't think that point is worth the bother. Tfz 17:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing the addendum to Wikipedia's policies stating that it's OK to break them if it's been that way for a long time? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)The addition of Google searches as references needs to be improved - by themselves, they are not references. Looking at some of the search results from the AA are interesting. For example, the AA define the term "British Isles" as including the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in the AA Breakdown Cover Policy Guide. Ireland is not mentioned. The article on Fireworks Displays for 2008 only lists those in Great Britain, and funnily enough has a link at the bottom for "AA Route Planner Routes for GB, Ireland and Europe". The AA Hotel Recognition Scheme also mentions British Isles, but this programme is also for UK hotels (and maybe IoM and CI, unclear on that). And yet, one of the travel FAQs for pets states "Pets resident in the British Isles (UK, Republic of Ireland, Isle of Man and Channel Islands) are not subject to any quarantine or PETS rules when travelling within the British Isles". --HighKing (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So all we can be certain of is that it sometimes does and sometimes doesn't use the term. I'm sure there's a policy about that somewhere... Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As previously noted, I will remove the sentences in question in 48 hours time unless evidence is presented that they are not OR. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

HighKing - that sentence I added, backed by Google search references, was merely to counterbalance the presence of the previous sentence which you put back in the article, until such time that the previous is improved or removed (46 hours to go...). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in policy where arbitrary deadlines are set, certainly not given the history of this article, and I don't agree to it. BTW, I didn't "put it back", I reverted your deletion of text where by your own subsequent admission, you hadn't read the relevant references. I believe the references support the existence of a trend towards avoiding using "British Isles" in certain publications. The references you put in which consist of Google links are not acceptable as references - perhaps you could improve them - although the AA website seems to be a mish mash of varying definitions (although appears to mostly use British Isles to exclude Ireland). --HighKing (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How long do you want to come up with the evidence? Under the circumstances (of the OR allegation) a deadline of some sort is reasonable. "The reference supports the existence of a trend" - synthesis. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hardly synthesis though to state that websites which used to use the term British Isles in certain places or on ceratin maps now use a different term (with references). Perhaps the word "Likewise" from the sentence should be omitted so that the sentence is reduced to a simple statement. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The references force readers to compare different versions of a publication and suggest that perceived differences indicate a trend. This is original research: There are no reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article that directly support the information as it is presented. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This really seems like a certain politically-motivated group is trying to brush the clear changes, from National Geographic to Folens to AA, under the carpet in order to obfuscate the fact that "British Isles" has been dropped from a wide variety of mapmakers. That they are even denying that "Britain and Ireland" is used by Irish people instead of "British Isles", and by non-Irish as a means to avoid offending Irish people, is ignoring the references in the academic and other sources attached to this article. Methinks they protest too much in their denial. 78.16.146.218 (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Both sides have protested abundantly. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, HighKing and anon, noone is proposing removing the Folens statement. That is because we have a source explicitly referring to their decision to stop using the term. However, we have no such statement for the other publishers. As much as we might like them to stop using the term, or believe that this or that title might suggest that they have taken such a decision, unless we can verify for sure that they have, it is OR to suggest otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I never commented on a proposal to remove the Folens statement. And it is not OR to simply state that publishers who used to publish maps using "British Isles", not publish maps using "Britain and Ireland" or "Great Britain and Ireland". The text does not use the word trend. Let the reader interpret the data as they see fit. I would be open to dropping the word "Likewise" as this may lead most readers to connect the factual statement with the preceding "decision" statement. --HighKing (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see the problem references run throughout the article. Why have principals with only certain references while being unprincipalled with blatent falsehoods elsewhere? Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Snyder p12 references

There is certainly a need to remove any "information" supposedly supported by Snyder p12 from this article. Does everybody agree? Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are blatant falsehoods throughout this article and its associated articles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with Snyder, Þjóðólfr? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad you asked:

The first antecedent of the term appears in the travel writings of the ancient Greek Pytheas around 320 BC, which described Πρεττανικη (Prettanike) or Βρεττανίαι (Brettaniai) as a group of islands in the far north-west.¹²

^{1 H.J. Mette, Pytheas von Massalia. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1952, fragment 14, after Cleomedes}

2 Snyder p12

If you could run your eye over the the above entry (and by all means take into account Wiki-Eds subsequent amendments), it would indicate a genuine attempt to be constructive. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A genuine attempt to be constructive, as opposed to what, exactly? Impolite language like that helps noone: so please refrain from using it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

..Hmm Þjóðólfr (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, you seem to have a problem with the author, Snyder. Aside from the fact that you might disagree with him, what is your reasoning for saying that any references to his work must be stricken from the article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You interpretation of my view is incorrect. I am saying The above statement puportedly from Snyder p12 is a pure invention. Þjóðólfr (talk) 06:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Does User:Þjóðólfr think we should be copying verbatim from the sources? Snyder supports the argument that the term originally appeared in the writings of Pytheas (the traveller from Marseilles that he alludes to). He does not use exactly the same form of words but we should not be copying exactly anyway; that would be plagiarism. While there might be an argument for rewriting the first paragraph so it is more explicit (I was trying to summarise in line with the recommendations further up the talk page) there is no argument for suggesting the sources (I can add more but I thought four was enough for one sentence) do not support the basic principle. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The mariner from Marseilles was writing in the 6^thCentury BC - Over 200 years before Pytheas!! Snyder does not mention Pytheas. Furthermore the terms used by our traveller (Albion & Ierne) were "soon replaced by Βρεττανίαι" - (There is no mention of Πρεττανικη at all). Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the mariner from Marseilles is probably Pytheas, even though Snyder gives different dates. Although I suppose I could now be accused of WP:OR or some such. But what's worth noting is that none of Pytheas' work survives, and that the writers who refer to his work actually post-date Caesar's use of the term which gives rise to the substitution of the 'P' for the 'B'. Although Snyder states that Greek writers used a 'B' root, other sources point out that this was most likely an error of translation. There is no direct evidence of use of a 'B' root that predates Caesar's use. --HighKing (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there were two travellers from the same place both of whom produced a περίπλους. It seems Snyder is referring to the earlier one (Massaliote Periplus) while the other sources cite Pytheas. Πρεττανικη is not mentioned specifically by Snyder, but is mentioned by some of the other sources, presumably including Mette, but I will add another to clarify. I will amend the sentence (i.e. expand to two or three) so the elements are split out and referenced individually. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)