Talk:British Isles/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

1RR needs sorting

Its clear from todays changes which has led to several people being blocked the current ruling on this matter simply causes more problems, and the awful wording that someone should NOT have added, has remained on the article for a long period of time because none of us are allowed to revert it.

The 1RR should only be applied to ones own edits and if it leads to many people getting involved in an edit war then the page should be protected for a week AFTER the stable wording is restored. That would seem easier to enforce and keep calm than the current method.BritishWatcher (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It'll just turn into a war of everyone on each "side" reverting once, the winner being the "side" with the most people able to revert, it will all end in tears! This way is better because at least then an admin can step in and "neutralise" the article back to its original state. The edit notice is perfectly clear that if you revert a revert you will be blocked. Jeni ^(talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost got caught out by this rule a few weeks ago, i think i was like two minutes away from getting blocked by CT but luckly i decided to undo my edit just in time. I cant see this method keeping more order than 1RR for every editor and then if a edit war does break out an admin protecting the page and restoring the stable version. Now several people have been blocked, all because an Admin (BrownHairedGirl) decided to come to this page and change the wording to something clearly that would be opposed by people here. Now CT will probably get abuse for applying punishments for those who broke the rule, despite disagreeing with the rule itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF, please. Britishwatcher, I changed the wording to something which seemed to me to be a simple formulation of a neutral approach to the question. Maybe I should have guessed that an opening sentence which doesn't lend weight to one side or other of the dispute would be opposed by those who think that a British worldview is neutral and a non-British one is POV, but I didn't. I try to assume at least some degree of fairness, but I note your advice that this is a bad assumption.

And no, I wasn't aware that this solution had been tried before. The discussions in the talk page archive are far too long and verbose to review, and no sane person would try to read them all before contributing.

As to Jeni's comment that lifting 1RR will lead to 'the winner being the "side" with the most people able to revert', well stone the crows! That'd be such a big difference to the winner being the side with the most people able to oppose a neutral wording. When the Encyclopedia Britannica article devotes nearly half its opening paragraph to to describing the controversial nature of the term, wikipedia's failure to follow suit makes it look like a particularly old-fashioned sort of Wikipedia Britannica rather than the neutral project it sets out to be. I feel an essay coming on ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont think i went against AGF, the wording you changed to was offensive and was clearly going to be reverted, i will strongly oppose any changes to that first sentence, anyway ive no more to say on this matter tonight. :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Who was offended? Jack forbes (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Offensive to say something is disputed come on. BigDunc 21:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, I can only read BW's comments as meaning that it is offensive to suggest that the preferred British terminology could be disputed by any reasonable person. I don't agree with him, but he's not exactly the first person to take that view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 28 September 2009

And now the only person still blocked is the person who restored the stable wording!! This system is just too unfair and counter productive. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not 1RR it is 0RR and it is not stated clear enough and if blocks are being handed out why has Jeni not got one for her revert of BHG. BigDunc 21:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I didn't revert a revert, as clearly stated at the top of the page. Jeni ^(talk) 21:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Jeni you know well that reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits and that is what you did. BigDunc 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read the edit notice... "Do not revert or undo another editor's revert." I didn't revert a revert, as I said above, you and the other guy both reverted a revert, there is a difference. Jeni ^(talk) 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is as Jeni says, do not revert another editors reversion. It's a very strict enforcement of the BRD cycle. Canterbury Tail talk 21:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree the current restriction doesn't work, but the last time it was brought up people wanted it kept, and indeed I was heavily criticised by many on this page for not enforcing it. Canterbury Tail talk 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What would be the alternative? I agree that the no revert of a revert rule is not ideal but wouldn't the alternative be a new and rather messy edit war? Jack forbes (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There isn't one, that's the problem. The best I can come up with is the full protect and then editing by consensus only, but that still has issues. Though it may make people think through arguments more rather than throwing "British imperialism" and "Republican ignorance" type comments around. I just don't know any more. Canterbury Tail talk 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)The alternative is to simply protect the page. It would have exactly the same effect on content as this 0RR, but it would mean nobody got blocked for misunderstanding the edit warning. (This 0rr rule means that any edit can be reverted and that's it, unless people want to be blocked, so no change is possible). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As much as I hate full protection, I fear it may be the only option on such a controversial topic. Jeni ^(talk) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would that be a disputed topic Jeni? BigDunc 22:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Controversial enough to be protected, but not controversial enough for the opening sentence to note the existence of that controversy? Brilliant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think its fairly obvious my comment referred to the controversial nature on Wikipedia, you seem to like reading too deep into my comments? Jeni ^(talk) 22:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So this dispute only exists on wikipedia is that what your saying Jeni BigDunc 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Jeni, I had assumed in good faith that there might have been some depth to your comments, but I'll accept your assertion of shallowness.

Pity, though, that even the EB article doesn't seem enough to persuade you that this isn't just a problem on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is controversial is mentioned in the first sentence of the second paragraph, that is more than enough. Jeni ^(talk) 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's priveliging one view over the other. So long as the opening paragraph continues to say "the BI are", without qualification, it presents that view as fact and the "controversy" as noises-off. That's not NPOV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR safe-guard should continue. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

BHG already pointed to the Encyclopedia Britannica article. I noted that BW thought her edit was offensive. An honest question. Does anyone think the britannica opening paragraph is offensive? If so, why do you think they would go out of their way to offend? Jack forbes (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely the 1RR rule can not be used to preserve a position against citation? --Snowded ^TALK 01:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead paragraph of this article should begin: "The British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase that refers to an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." It has the merit of being both correct and sourced. I am rarely offended by the Encyclopædia Britannica and, in this case, not at all. Could an admin make the appropriate change please? Daicaregos (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds good, Daicaregos but I think we should also specify the Isle of Man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that suggestion by Daicaregos, and the words "increasingly controversial" should be referenced to the EB. I don't mind either way whether the IoM is included in the opening sentence.

Does anyone object to the use of the EB as a reliable source for the "increasingly controversial"? If so, please explain why. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections with the sentence or EB as a source. BigDunc 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the suggested wording. The first paragraph must stay the same, we go into details about the disputed status of the term in the second paragraph. Its questionable if this dispute belongs in the introduction at all, theres not a chance its being put in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you oppose? BigDunc 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The only way to resolve this is citation, in this case the above wording does that and is used by britannica in the lede. BW you can't (legitimately) strongly oppose something which is cited without a far more solid reason than your opinion. On the British Empire article you argued that a (much weaker) citation was sufficient and you should attempt consistency here. --Snowded ^TALK 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose because the current wording has been agreed to over a long period of time, with a few exceptions since that point the introduction has remained stable. The British isles are a group of islands, its not "an increasining controversial phrase" first. To switch this around would be very offensive and clearly overplays this dispute. As in the article, Irish publishers still use it.

The British Isles must be treated the same way a continent or island is. The Great Britain article doesnt start by saying GB is a phrase..., the Europe article does not start, Europe is a term.. Such things are stated as fact, and reliable sources clearly state the British Isles as fact.

If any change at all to that introduction is made in the next few days before far more people have commented on this alteration and agreed to it, i will revert. As 1RR is still inforce, that will lock it into place. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So a reliable and authoritative source says it is controversial, but BW says it is not? --Snowded ^TALK 09:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And has stated that he will edit war in the hope of getting the page protected, this is more disruptive than the editors who were blocked, which BW supported, last night. BigDunc 09:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And the issue of double standards on the British Empire article is not addressed - can you do that BW? --Snowded ^TALK 09:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive not stated i will edit war, ive stated i will revert a disgusting and offensive change to this article if it does not have clear consensus on this talk page. That is not edit warring and it violates no rule. As for the BE article, i cant remember what incident you are refering to, although the British Empire article is a FA so if its something in the article still now it must be acceptable. Oh and i never once said last night that i supported blocks being issued, i started this conversation here because clearly issuing blocks in such a way resolved nothing and simply caused more problems, allowing the offensive wording to remain in the article for a longer period of time because we are not allowed to revert it ourselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I accept its controversial for some, although i consider some of the crap we hear here on wikipedia about it seriously over plays the dispute. Im slightly confused, people are talking about the British Isles article on Britannica, but that does exactly what we do already from what i can see..

British Isles - "group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The group consists of two main islands, Great Britain and Ireland, and numerous smaller islands and island groups, including the Hebrides, the Shetland Islands, the Orkney Islands, the Isles of Scilly, and the Isle of Man. Some also include the Channel Islands in this grouping. Although the term British Isles has a long history of common usage, it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland who object to its connotation of political and cultural connections between Ireland and the United Kingdom"

We do exactly the same thing, we just split that long single paragraph in two and go into MORE detail about the dispute / alternative names used. The EB backs up the current wording not this disgusting wording proposed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please AGF, be civil and moderate your tone. Saying things are "offensive" and that the proposed wording is "disgusting" is completely unnecessary and insulting. All that is needed to be said is that you disagree. Daicaregos (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. Now you have agreed that it is controversial and it appears in the article we have a reliable source for the sentence, so I can see no reason for not adding it to the lead. BigDunc 09:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Its in the lead already thanks BigDunc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is in the second paragraph, but qualified. We now have an authoritative citation which simply says it is controversial without qualification. Its OK to suggest different ways to word that, it is not OK to call another edit's wording "disgusting", I suggest you strike that. --Snowded ^TALK 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok i have striked it, but i oppose that awful wording being added to the introduction. Even if we have a source that says its controversial without qualification, does not mean the first sentence needs changing. To start an article.. "British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase" instead of stating what the British Isles are (a group of islands), clearly goes against relibale sources and it would not make the introduction neutral, far from it such a change would be deeply offensive and give too much weight to this dispute. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It was quiet for a time and now they're back with a new line-up. What happened to the last bunch? Did they all get blocked? The structure of the Britannica article is strikingly similar to that which is currently used here. If we were copying that format – which we shouldn’t be doing – then this article would look… exactly like it is at the moment. The facts are stated and relevant qualifications follow. Neutrality trumps verifiability. In fact, on that basis, there is a good case for removing mention of the supposed controversy from the intro altogether. It is only relevant to a small minority of inhabitants of the geographic area (maybe 7% if everyone in Ireland objects) and a tiny minority of the total number of English speakers, for whom this encyclopaedia is written. The current text is a compromise and the minority have absolutely no case for pushing their opinion further than is already reflected. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@BritishWatcher: If you'd like to understand how something can correctly be termed "offensive" all you need to do is to read the incivil comment made by Wiki-Ed above. See, you learn something new from Wikipedia every day. Daicaregos (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol i thought Wiki-Ed made some very good points BritishWatcher (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Claim of offensiveness

The problem here seems to be that BW insists that the proposed wording is "offensive", and expects his application of that word to trump anything else. At this point, the onus is on BW to explain in detail exactly how a reliably-sourced use of the word "controversial" in the lead is "offensive", when he doesn't appear to be claiming that it's offensive if it's para 2.

This seems to be perverse. If BW finds it offensive to note the controversy in para 1, why is he not offended by its inclusion in para 2?

This requires a detailed explanation, BW, not just a repetition of words like "offensive" and "disgusting". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I have explained above, and this issue has been raised in the past where others have objected. Perhaps those who have arrived on this page in the past 24 hours and started this campaign should read some of the archives?

Its offensive because the proposed wording treats the British Isles a different way to other locations on wikipedia. I support the second paragraph, it explains the concerns some people have aswell as saying alternatives. but that is very very different to starting this article..

"The British Isles is an increasingly offensivecontroversial phrase"...

Imagine the Europe article or the Great Britain article, starting.. "is a term used to describe" Such things are treated as fact, and yes i find it offensive for people to suggest it should be treated differently. Reliable sources back up our wording, even the EB which you guys have mentioned backs up our wording not the proposed wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The proposal is to say "controversial" not "offensive" and as far as I am aware there is no controversy over the name and extent of Europe so that is a red herring. --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry yes, controversial (corrected it). still exactly the same problem though. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the British Isles a phrase, or is the British Isles a group of islands? Reliable sources say its a group of islands. Even if we left out the controversial, it we shouldnt start by saying British Isles is a phrase used...., that is where the issue of Europe or Great Britain comes into play. These are all manmade terms, by putting in the first sentence this is just a phrase, goes against reliable sources and would not be neutral. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So a wording which says it is controversial, but does not use "phrase" or "term" would be acceptable? --Snowded ^TALK 09:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would probably object to that aswell, but i wouldnt find it offensive the way i find starting this article "British Isles is a phrase", which downplays it. I think the current agreed wording is good. First paragraph explains what the British Isles is, second is dedicated to the dispute over its name and mentions alternatives. That seems reasonable. This issue was covered at lenght, agreed consensus was the British Isles are a group of islands.. not a phrase. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, using the word "phrase" does not contradict the reliable sources. What sources say it isn't a phrase?

But if the word phrase is the stumbling block, how about wording it as "controversial description of" or "controversial name for"? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

BW, I said if "phrase" was removed would you object so I am not sure why you are saying you would object? BHG suggestion sounds good --Snowded ^TALK 10:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Because i do not think we need to say its controversial in the first sentence and i would rather the previously agreed introduction remain than make alterations on that first sentence, the whole second paragraph covers this matter clearly enough. Lets wait and see how others respond, but like i pointed out before this matter came up in the past and it was agreed we must say British Isles is a group of islands, not downgrade / downplay it by saying its some form of term which is the bit i find offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The islands existed long before the name, which is a relatively recent human construction; they will continue to exist even if the name is changed. Some names are uncontroversial, so we say "X is ...", but there are plenty of wikipedia articles which handle this situation by problematising a name in the first sentence by a form of words along the lines of "X, also known as Y or Z, is ...". So the notion that it's some sort of wikipedia convention for a lead to state a name as unqualified fact is simply wrong.

But maybe it would be better to turn this around. What form of words would you accept in the opening sentence to make it clear that the term is controversial? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change the introduction, if someone wants to suggest a more reasonable alteration than the previous proposal here then i will consider it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's helpful, insofar as we have finally clarified that your actual objection is not to the wording of any alternative proposal, but to any change at all. The problem here is that you are being disingenuous: if you see no reason to change the intro, then your promise to consider "a more reasonable alteration" is worthless, because you have already made it clear that you view any change as automatically unreasonable.

So you've actually just used a lot of words to say nothing more than would have been conveyed by "no, no, no". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol fine, no no no! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is a small group of editors who think Wikipedia’s core policies don’t apply to their opinions. BI is not a "phrase", it is a proper noun. It may be controversial in some places, but those people who find it controversial are vastly outnumbered by those who do not. Thus, to qualify the noun in the lead sentence implies the topic is much more controversial than it actually is; this is not neutral and has no place here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, I agree with your first sentence. The problem here is that a small group of editors insist that their POV must be stated as a "fact", while reliably-sourced opposing views are relegated to a subsidiary position. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing many reliable secondary sources with a single tertiary source, the emphasis of which is being misrepresented to support a minority POV. The former provides neutrality and verifiability; the latter barely meets the criteria for verifiability alone. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please clarify how my proposal "misrepresents" the Encyclopedia Britannica. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

EB says the British isles is a group of islands, it goes on to define which islands. Then it says its increasinly controversial. The proposal above seeks to say it is an increasinly controversial phrase that refers to...., that is not what the EB source says. The EB do what we do, we simply divide it into two paragraphs instead of one long one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to what BW said: the EB article qualifies its statement by explaining the controversy relates to Ireland/Irish perception (as we do in the second para) whereas the proposed wording would not. This would be synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. The EB article says "it has become increasingly controversial", and follows that by saying "especially for some in Ireland". You are trying to misrepresent the EB by portraying it as relating solely to Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

We cannot seriously be back on this topic again? --Narson ~ Talk • 11:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Narson - sadly yes. BHG - the implication of section in the EB is that the controversy relates to the Irish/Ireland. It doesn't give any other explanation and doesn't provide any citations (one good reason we don't use tertiary sources). Grateful if you could provide some secondary sources explaining who/where else it is controversial. And, in any case, the format is the key point. The layout puts the facts first and the opinions second - which is exactly what we do here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you complain about not following what the sources say, yet you impose an interpretation on the source which isn't what it says. If the EB had wanted to say that the controversy was solely relating to Ireland it would have omitted the word "especially", as in "it has become increasingly controversial, especially for some in Ireland". It didn't do that, so you have no grounds for claiming that it implies somethinmg other than what it says.
And I simply adore the way you try to characterise the British view as "fact", and the Irish view as "opinions". That's a priceless illustration of a British world-view ... and while you are quite entitled to your world-view, wikipedia strives for neutrality. Do you want to retract that, or would you like to try to explain in what way the controversial nature of the name in Ireland is not a fact? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it was a Wikipedia article we would have stuck "citation needed" and "weasel words" tags all over it. The only attempt to qualify their statement is to hint that it relates to Ireland. If it was a general trend it would not need qualification at all.

As for neutrality, one would hope you are familiar with the concept of weighting? Minority views do not get the same coverage as the majority. Assuming everyone in Ireland finds it objectionable - and there is no evidence of this - and considering the potential readership of this article (the English speaking population of the world) the proportion who find the term controversial is considerably less than 1%. If we restrict ourselves to the population of the geographic area to which the term applies it is no more than 6 or 7% (population of Ireland as a proportion of the population of the isles). Yet somehow, here, 50% of the lead section is devoted to covering that POV. This is not neutral, but we're willing to allow that view to be reflected. That is compromise enough. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would come down to that, but it's helpful of you to state your methodology so clearly. Two neighbouring countries have radically different views about a collective term, and you say that the views of the more heavily-populated one should trump those of the smaller one, to the point of dismissing the minority as "opinion" against the majority's "fact". By that rationale, I presume that you are going to try to rewrite the article on Cuba, using the American POV as "fact" and Cuban perspective as "opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not what I say; what Wikipedia says (WP:WEIGHT): Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. A consequence of having a larger population is that there are more 'reliable sources' to work with. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you take sort of legalistic view of "undue weight", and ignore the spirit of it, then we might as well go the whole way and rewrite the lead of Republic of Ireland to describe it as "an unruly former colony populated by terrorist bogtrotters, feckless layabouts, and other sorts of undesirable papist". Followed, of course by something much lower down to say that the Irish dispute this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If that was what the majority of reliable sources said then yes... but as you well know, they don’t. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The above conversation is a waste of time. The proposed change is opposed by several people. It will not be added to the article, and there is nothing to gain from going over old ground which was covered in the past that can be found in the archives. Lets play with the motorway articles instead please and leave the British Isles alone. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we could save a lot of time on wikipedia if discussion of any change was abandoned when "opposed by several people". That would lead to a permanent freeze on any change to huge swathes of articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This article needs to be 'peer reviewed', then frozen, and then visited only once a year, or in exceptional circumstances, to keep it up to speed with events. It has been an awful 'drain'. Tfz 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Quit the patronising would you BW your comment Lets play with the motorway articles instead please and leave the British Isles alone shows you up for the type of editor you are. This is supposed to be a collaboration process not a democracy weight of numbers mean fuck all. BigDunc 13:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I oppose the wording, it gives undue weight to the argument, the first sentence of the second paragraph (which is still in the lead) is more than enough. Jeni ^(talk) 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you say "undue weight"?

Explicit rejection by the govt of one of the two sovereign states included seems to me to be fairly heavyweight. What do you want,a UN resolution? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to have a completely neutral admin come in here and assess the discussion? In my opinion there is no reason not to include the controversy in the opening lines. I feel a completely neutral admin would agree (I think so anyway). Would this be a good idea, and does anyone know of such an admin? Jack forbes (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is right up there in the lede in a nice spot at the start of a paragraph. More prominance that we would normally give to such controversy (I'm thinking of how we treat the naming controversy on Burma/Myanmar, for example). Totally agree with Jeni here. Can both sides try to treat this as a geography article and not a battlefield though? It is what keeps people away from the article (giving the much needed third POV) --Narson ~ Talk • 13:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If only this was just a geography article, then we'd have a much easier life :(

The problem is that applying the name of one country to a collective term encompassing another is a political issue rather than a geographical one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that the Irish Sea article has this lede paragraph. "The Irish Sea (Irish: Muir Éireann or Muir Meann, Scottish Gaelic: Muir Eireann or Muir Mheann, Manx: Mooir Vannin, Welsh: Môr Iwerddon) also known as the Mann Sea or Manx Sea". It is the same case for Britain and Ireland which is also used at times for British Isles. Shouldn't Britain and Ireland be mentioned in the lede sentence because it is an alternative name and more so because of the controversy surrounding the whole naming issue in real life? Are we saying Mann sea and Muir Mheann can be included in the lede but Britain and Ireland can't because it's controversial? It is the controversy that should make it a shoe in for the lede paragraph. Jack forbes (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. Of course it shouldn't, Jack. This issue is (apparently) being decided by majority rule, and the majority feels under no obligation to be consistent. Now, go and tug that forelock before the British get offended again ;-) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Never tugged my forelock to anyone. Wouldn't know where to find it. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning a name in different languages is not the same as suggesting an alternative term in the same language, especially when that term is not an accurate equivalent. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it is an issue for some people and I understand the frustration if you feel valid concerns are being ignored. Though, that said, to me it is just a geography article. There is no political issue for me, just a related fact that needs to be documented appropiatly and sourced. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (ecx3: I would like to say that I have no problem with, and would encourage the inclusion of, Britain and Ireland as an alternative name. It is not yet the common name that I can tell but does appear to be getting some usage (Probably more people use it than speak the Manx Language mentioned above!) --Narson ~ Talk • 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a viable alternative precisely because it doesn't include those who speak Manx (and others). "Britain and Ireland" does not encompass the same geographic area as "the British Isles". Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it encompasses the same geographic area as the British Isles is, believe it or not, irrelevant. If people are using the name Britain and Ireland as an alternative to British Isles that is the important thing. Is there any proof that those who use it don't think of the other islands when saying it? If people insist on accuracy in their geographic names then I'm afraid British Isles doesn't live up to that. Jack forbes (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well there is the question as to whether the Manx people are offended by the suggestion that there homeland be written out of the term for the archipelago. Are we denigrating them in our attempts to appease another group who feel denigrated by a third group? I can't help feeling that the real problem might be the use of "British" to mean either UK-ish or Great British rather than to refer to anyone from the islands, on a par with using Irish to refer only to the 26 counties and not the 32.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there *is* a question as to whether the Manx people are offended by "Britiain and Ireland", and this has been suggested before, but nobody has ever offered evidence that they are. Rather than just throwing out this possibility, do you *know* that the Manx have a problem with 'Britain' or are you just speculating? I went to the Isle of Man govt website and posted references (not all of them that I found) that show Manx govt ministers themselves using the term 'Britain' to represent the IoM and seemingly being perfectly comfortable with the term's use to describe IoM, but I was dismissed as bringing irrelevant material to this debate. And as for your suggestion that the problem is with GB/UK being British, that involves a fantasy of reversing a couple thousand years of history and doing a 'what if'? In any event, there's no evidence that most Irish want to be even geographically 'British' so there is no problem from an Irish perspective with the U.K. and GB having claimed the term "British". Most Irish don't want it. Nuclare (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On the broader issue, I think it would be useful to know

• how the archipelago was referred to in English before Dee referred to the British Isles.
• What terms were used in other languages, in particular Latin which would have been used by British, Irish and European scholars up to the Reformation which took place shortly before Dee was writing. What was it in Norman French?

There's been mention of Ancient Greek terminology for the whole archipelago as British. Then the Romans invaded and called the bit they conquered Britannia. But what was the practice in the middle ages. Is Dee just translating a widespread practice into English or coining a new term with imperialist intent and it just happens to be similar to what some ancient Greeks used?--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You might want to narrow down what you mean by Middle Ages. I mean, do you want the Anglo-Saxon? The Norse? The Norman? Early French? Early English? Tudor Terms? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the revisionist thesis seems to be: 1) Dee coined the term, 2) he was an imperialist 3) therefore there are deep idelogical flaws underlying the usage "British Isles". I'm willing to be convinced by this argument but want to see more evidence. Dee was writing only a gneration after More wrote Utopia in Latin and therefore it is appropriate to look to Latin usage as an expected influence on his English. If the community of Latin-writing scholars in the late middle ages into the early Renaissance world were already using terms which translate as "British Isles", that would seriously undermine the thesis. Following the links to the French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Greek, Dutch, Russian, Swedish and Danish Wikipedias, I notice that they all use terminology equivalent to "British Isles". Several of these are or have been maritime powers and have attempted to invade the islands at various times and yet they do not favour an alternative usage. I would therefore be surprised if they had all abandonned a different previous usage.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can find pictures of contemporary maps in medieval Latin in various places, for example here [1], which mention Britanniae Insulae. It seems unlikely that Dee coined the term independently when there are so many other sources indicating the term was already in use by scholars. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It does look more realistic to assume that he followed pre-existing usage, which might have been an English-language oral tradition or the written Latin pattern. Of course the map seems to be of English provenance. A mainland European or Irish source would also be useful.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a few links here [2]. There are plenty of European names there but - and I haven't checked them all - I didn't see any which appeared to have an Irish origin. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter I think you have fallen into the trap. Britannicae is British; Britanniae is of Britain. Insulae is Islands; only since John Dee's use of the term, British Isles has it been retranslated as "Isles." The first 'grouping' of the area was in Roman times by the Greco-Roman (not ancient Greek) Ptolomey (and even that was not usual Roman Terminology. The earliest extant reference to the area is, I believe, Dioderus, in Roman times, and according to this wiki, The connection is made as follows:[7] Pliny reports[8] that "Timaeus says there is an island named Mictis ... where tin is found, and to which the Britains cross...." Diodorus says that tin is brought to the island of Ictis, where there is an emporium. The only indisputable fact is that, at present the first usage of the term "British Isles" was by John Dee. The term BI did not gain widspread usage until 300 years after Dee - well into the 19thC. The trap is because we have the ubiquitous image of Britain and Ireland burned into our conscience we assume Greeks, Romans, and Tudors also did - they didn't. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The first known usage of British Isles was by Dee according to a certain source, we do not know that it wasnt used by someone else before. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. Dee used "Brytish Iles", which is early modern English; easily distinguished from modern English by the obvious spelling differences. Just thought I ought to point that out since we seem to be splitting hairs. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed also knows that The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia is simply complete bollocks. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Revisionist editor vs reliable sources. Result: swearing. Constructive as ever I see. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Two points Pytheas' text has been lost over 2000 years - where is the revisionism?. Second Can we really relie on your "Reliable sources" (or do you mean the subtly different WP:RS?) (1) you have found the trolls paradise of a WP:RS (Foster/O Corrain), containing an unreliable sentence which is demonstrably untrue.(2) Allen, p. 174 is simply does not support the sentence. Synthesis of (1) + (2) = Complete and utter Bollocks. Yeah if I were you I would be smug; you are managing to fool all the people all the time. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That was not very coherent, but I gather that you dislike one source - so presumably you'll be providing some reviews that discredit it - and you can't read or haven't bothered to read the other one. Did you consider that the other editors are not "fooled", that they simply read the sources and accept what they say? Just a thought. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly invite everyone to read Allen, p. 174 and call your bluff. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Try reading page 172. Someone changed the sentence slightly a few weeks ago and did not change the reference. This has now been done. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay here[3] is the German Sebastian Münster refering to "Britannicae insulae" in 1550. As for the usage of the term, presumably can cite sources. My OED CD-ROM - the previous edition to the one now beign sold - contains the following citations

• 1621 Heylin Microcosmus 243 (page-heading) The Brittish Isles.
• 1792 A. Young Trav. France ii. 343 A territory, naturally so inconsiderable as the British isles, on comparison with France.
• 1888 A. J. Jukes-Browne Building of Brit. Isles 1 There have been many different arrangements of land and sea over the area where the British Isles now stand.
• 1916 G. B. Shaw Androcles & Lion Pref. p. li, Practically all the white inhabitants of the British Isles and the North American continent.
• 1960 C. Day Lewis Buried Day ii. 32 He was for ever buying, selling or exchanging books, many of them worthless, with correspondents all over the British Isles.

One example for every century after Dee (who isn't cited here) and two for the then-current century.Peter cohen (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Münster's work was not a contemporary work but a Latin edition of Ptolemy's Geographia. Any British resident with a library membership can access the Times Archive and see that the term BI was not in common usage until well into the 19thC (and without a single mention during the first 20 years of printing). Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

⬅BW seems to be under the mistaken idea that he (or a small group of editors) have a right of veto - this is not the case and little less preaching would be appreciated. There is also some double standards here. On British Empire we had a use of British Isles (defended by WIki-Ed and BW) which was clearly OR. A tertiary reference (the Encarta dictionary) was found as a single citation to support the use. The editors concerned then used this to insist on its retention. Now we will get back to that debate and it was only suspended. However we now have a case where a strong source (Britannica) supports controversy, and low and behold the same editors are trying to find a way to ignore the citation. --Snowded ^TALK 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well im glad we consider Britannica a strong source, perhaps we should open up the debate on what Wales is based on their wording? [4]. I honestly do not understand why people keep trying to use the EB source as though it justifies change, it uses exactly the same method we do, we just divide it into two paragraphs so its more clear. If it will make you happy Snowded, i will support having a single paragraph for our intro, so its inline with EB. ok? BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the point on the British Empire article I see BW, I'm disappointed but not surprised. As to the rather petty point about Wales then go to the citation tables we produced, a lot of COLLABORATIVE effort went into sorting that out. Try and do the same here. --Snowded ^TALK 23:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not avoiding the point i addressed your point along with giving an example where i knew you would be less supportive of EB being such a strong source. Your point was about EB being a strong source for change, i pointed out this article follows EBs methods, they do not put it in the first sentence. Sure its in the first paragraph, but we split ours in two, is that really a problem when we go into more detail about the dispute and offer an alternative term?

This issue on the British Empire article has been resolved, and i do remember the bit you are talking about now but it was important to talk of territories outside of the British Isles so as to avoid confusion with the crown colonies and it was backed up by the source found yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The BE hasn't been resolved BW it was suspended in the hope of a generic solution. I think your overall position is now pretty clear, there are people ideologically against the BI phrase, and people ideologically for it. Both groups make progress difficult. --Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

I find the latest proposal acceptable, on the grounds that the article is (correctly) named 'British Isles'. Seems a fair trade off to me (along with the fact that Republic of Ireland will remain at it's present name 'til 2011 [at least]). GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I cant accept a compromise on this matter for those reasons. Although this recent spike in activity could be seen by some as a punishment for the outcome of that vote. I have several times mentioned that i expected to see an increase in certain actions across wikipedia following that vote and sadly my thoughts on this matter have not been proven wrong yet, BritishWatcher (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Makes me see the conviction of the Birmingham Six in a whole new light.... --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I don't see this as some sort of punishment (who is being punished?). Although I have not often been part of this debate over the long time it has been going on, I have kept an eye on it. I don't believe there is a minority of editors who believe a mention of the controversy should be mentioned in the lede paragraph. Even if that were so, majority doesn't rule, it is the strength of the argument that matters. Putting aside my opinion that it should be included in the lede para I would ask again. Is there a way to get a neutral admin/s to have a look at these discussions and at the very least give us their honest opinion. Jack forbes (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the introduction, the whole second paragraph is dedicated to this matter. That seems very reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've also agreed in the past that I see no reason why it requires a mention in the very first paragraph. But now I've changed my mind, especially as I now understand the "tactics" of several British editors here on Wikipedia. Being reasonable and open to compromise just doesn't work. Oh well. --HighKing (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland is an alternative name. Whether you think that offensive or you think it does not match precisely the geography of the British Isles is neither here nor there. The fact is, it is used by people in place of BI's, an alternative. Alternative names should be part of the lede paragraph. Jack forbes (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. What's so important about alternative names anyway? They already get a mention in the artcicle even before the contents. Thats's good enough. This article is about the British Isles, not about alternatives or controversies. There are other articles dealing with those points. Leave the lead alone, I say. Mister Flash (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking at alternative names, I find

• Burma, officially the Union of Myanmar...
• Lulu Kennedy-Cairns, OBE, (born Marie McDonald McLaughlin Lawrie on 3 November 1948 in Lennoxtown, East Dunbartonshire)...
• The Stars My Destination is a science fiction novel by Alfred Bester. Originally serialized in Galaxy magazine in four parts beginning with the October 1956 issue, it first appeared in book form as Tiger! Tiger! (after William Blake's poem "The Tyger"[citation needed]) when published in England, where it remains widely known under that title."

• Revisting this, the usage of "England" is interesting here. "Britain" would be an improvement, but I suspect, subject to correction from residents of the 26 counties, that this version would also have been the one available throughout Ireland and in the Empire/Commonweath... I wan't born at the time the book came out, but I certainly have memories of price information being shown on UK-published books for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Irish currency was tied to Sterling at the time; so there would have been no perceived to print a price for there.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Al-Qaeda (pronounced /ælˈkaɪdə/ or /ælˈkeɪdə/; Arabic: القاعدة‎, al-qāʿidah, "the base"), alternatively spelled al-Qaida and sometimes al-Qa'ida...
• The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America)...

--Peter cohen (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lets not forget Britain and Ireland is NOT an alternative name for the British Isles, its an alternative term used. Britain and Ireland does not equal the British Isles, there is no alternative name for what is known as the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And America does not match up to the United States of America. It actually matches up to the Americas. As`I have said, you can't deny that people use Britain and Ireland in place of British Isles. That is an alternative Jack forbes (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. America has several meanings. Britain and Ireland does not include all the locations the British isles do. According to Britain Ireland or even Great Britain, its clear the locations described in those articles do not match what is described in the British Isles article. If those articles are incorrect please take this matter up there. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we are talking of geography. America does not equal United states but is often used in error to refer to the States, just as B&I are used to refer to BI's. Jack forbes (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You have just made me laugh out loud, BW. I've just had a look at the Britain and Ireland article and what did I find? It was only you that deleted the information from it that explained it was an alternative name for British Isles. Ha! Jack forbes (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

America is a name often used when talking about the USA, greedy Americans, i wonder where they learned such things :). The point is Britain and Ireland does not equal the British Isles by any reasonable sources. If i say Britain and Ireland, i either mean the two islands or i mean the two states.. I do not mean what is the British Isles and the articles on those things clearly show this is the case, as i said before if you have a problem with that then try and get those articles fixed, but this intro states its an alternative term, that is very different to an alternative or commonly known name. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not ask you to look at the disgusting questionable article at Britain and Ireland which should not even exist. I asked you to look at Ireland, Britain and Great Britain. Combining the locations in those 3 articles does NOT equal what is the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Disgusting, yet you decided to edit it? I'm sorry, BW. Using words like disgusting is only pointing out the glaring POV you are showing. It also denegrates the work put in by those who created and worked on it. I'm gone for the night. Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The language is getting out of hand here, BW please think before you write and calm down a bit. --Snowded ^TALK 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Im going to bed now anyway, ive had enough of this nonsense for tonight. I decided to edit that page, removing unsourced content instead of returning the page to a dab which i think is justified. I think that shows i did the right and reasonable thing there, i even added a cite tag some time before deleting certain content. I have striked out my comment and put questionable instead. Night BritishWatcher (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that your first version of that comment said "I decided to edit that page, removing unsourced content instead of returning the page to a redirect which i think is justified". I was just about to ask you what exactly you proposed to redirect it to, given that you insist that "Britain & Ireland" is not the same as "British Isles". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have wanted it to be a redirect to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. As i pointed out on the talk page of that article, that was one of the most important things it should link to as a dab page as far as i was concerned and a few days ago i had to change several links incorrectly going to that article to point towards the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland article as sometimes people leave off UK from that wording. However i did mean to say dab, not redirect so i changed my wording above. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If the compromise is a lead sentence of "The British Isles is an increasingly controversial phrase that refers to an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." then I also oppose it. A couple of reasons for this. Firstly, the opening sentence should describe the primary subject of the article. The article is primarily about the Isles, it is not primarily about its terminology. Such an opening sentence would be most appropriate for the article British Isles (term). Secondly, on Wikipedia articles about entities titled with proper nouns are written about the things they describe, not about the terms that describe the things. Are there any other articles on a similar subject that start by describing the phrase rather than the entity? For example, Pacific Islands starts, "The Pacific Islands comprise 20,000 to 30,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean." It does not start, "The Pacific Islands is a phrase that refers to 20,000 to 30,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean." If this title is acceptable for an article about the Isles, then it is acceptable to describe them collectively in the opening sentence. If it is not acceptable term to describe the Isles in the opening sentence (without caveat), then the article should be renamed.

That all said, I'm not suggesting the controversy be removed completely. My objections are could be easily resolved by rephrasing, for example: "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This description of the islands is increasingly controversial." Rockpocket 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is going int the right direction, how about fleshing it out a bit? --Snowded ^TALK 07:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

British Isles Until 1949 a collective title for Great Britain, Ireland, and the numerous islands surrounding the two larger islands, including the Isle of Man. In 1949 the Republic of Ireland left the British Commonwealth and so could no longer be included in the title. ref "British Isles" Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names. John Everett-Heath. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press./ref The point is that there exists a reliable source that directly contradicts the opening sentence as proposed by Rockpocket. I think, in light of this, the opening sentence really does need to be qualified along BHG lines. Þjóðólfr (talk) 07:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's quite obvious this article has become a vehicle for political trouble-making, and it can't be a big stretch to say those people should not be editing anything. The Times entry and the BBC entry are presented as if they favour the new useage, which they do not mention. The "Economic History Society" warns against using "British Isles" but for very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with re-fighting the troubles in here. Allowing this kind of thing to go on makes the lives of sensible editors a misery. TomRawlinson (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be ok with a change to something like Rockpocket said, "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This description of the islands is increasingly controversial." if it resolves this current problem, although that would also require a change to the second paragraph to avoid repetition. Whilst i would be ok with the second sentence saying about it being controversial, i do think the more detailed text on the controversy that appears in the second paragraph does belong after the more detailed explanation of what British Isles actually is. Talking all about the controversy and then what the British Isles is seems like the wrong order to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually BW, in response to your comment about "British Isles" not being identical to "Britain and Ireland", what you say isn't true. The islands that are covered by the "British Isles" aren't set out. When many people refer to the "British Isles" they may be referring to just Britain and Ireland. The argument could also be made that when people refer to Britain, they may include the other islands also. Unlike countries, the "British Isles" is merely a (controversial) term which describes a set of islands. FF3000 · talk 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Speculating about what people may or may not mean when they use a phrase is worthless OR. The sources cited do set out what islands are part of the British Isles, and clarify that the Channel Islands are sometimes considered a part. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that I only recently stumbled upon this "controversy," and haven't had the time (nor the desire) to read the above discussion. I do, however, have two ideas to throw out:

• Having the intro read: "The British Isles refer to a group of islands...", insinuating that while it is the most common term, it is not THE term. The rest of the intro can be changed or left as status quo.
• Having the second sentence briefly describe the controversy, so that all who read it will notice the name difference. (perhaps "Due to the association of the word "British" with Ireland, a dispute exists over the name of the islands; terms such as Britain and Ireland are often used in Ireland and elsewhere.") This is based on the current consensus at Persian Gulf. Trimming the controversy trimmed down to one sentence will also help the intro, which is greatly lacking a good description of the islands themselves.

Thoughts? Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't support an opening sentence using "BI is a term..." or "BI refers to..." or anything similar. The sources are clear on this - the British Isles is a particular group of islands. Loads of articles on wikipedia are about things/places/people/comcepts which have multiple names in different countries/areas/languages/cultures. We don't (or at least shouldn't) allow those articles to be dominated by discussion of these names, and we shouldn't be drawn into a false compromise here. We should mention, in brief, that there are objections to this name, and link to relevant articles, but there is no question among the sources that 'British Isles' is the English-language name of the archipelago. --hippo43 (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Other examples of problematising a term

This discussion is stalling because some editors refuse to distinguish between the name and the thing being named. Of course the islands exist, but nobody is disputing that, and nobody is disputing that the word "British Isles" has been widely used to describe them.

What is in dispute is the use of this collective noun to describe them, and where such a term is disputed, there ae other examples of wikipedia articles which remain neutral on whether the term "is" the thing referred to, by using form of words such as "is a term referring to ". See for example Negro, or for geographical examples Far East or Mitteleuropa. Another approach can be seen at Land of Israel, which uses the word "is", but promptly attributes the ownership of the term to a particular school of thought: "Land of Israel is, according to the Hebrew Bible"/

If we search further I'm sure we'll find that here are plenty of other ways of using a concise formulation in the opening sentence to indicate that either the name or the concept is the favoured in usage in a particular context, but is disputed or rejected elsewhere.

I am quite happy to consider various ways of problematising the term concisely in the opening sentence, but what we are encountering instead is an unbending refusal by one editor to consider anything other than an unqualified statement of one POV as "fact". That's not how consensus is reached, and just saying "no, no, no" to every proposal is disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands." Thanks I would say going on and on about trying to change the first sentence when several editors have made clear they strongly oppose such a change is rather disruptive. But lets all assume good faith shall we. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl is absolutely right. See also Western world, "also known as the West and the Occident... a term that can have multiple meanings depending on its context." The fact that one editor, or even a minority of editors, "strongly opposes" changes which would benefit most readers by creating clarity should not prevent change. The time has come for those "opinions" to be overridden here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The western world is a term that can have multiple meanings, that article also has several warning tags because its badly written. The British isles is not a term that can have multiple meanings, it is a geographical location, reliably sourced. To compare the two things is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, you are still failing to understand the crucial distinctions between things themselves, the use of a collective name to apply to a group of them, and the name(s) which may be used. The latter two are human constructs, unlike the islands themselves.

"British Isles" is itself just two words, not a thing. In many (most?) cases the principle of applying a collective name may be uncontroversial, but that's not the case here. Nor is the choice of name uncontroversial.

Yet you insist that the first sentence of the article should introduce a contested name for a contested concept as if it were unqualified fact. That's misleading to the reader, and a blatantly partisan attempt to privelige one view over the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And no not one editor or a minority of editors.. the majority. Look at the last time this nonsense was debated when the article intro was debated. Other people who have not commented this time round disagreed with the idea we start off with some crap like "The British Isles is a term..." BritishWatcher (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please provide us with RELIABLE sources that describes the British Isles as a term in its opening sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'd be reasonably content with Rockpocket's formulation, "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This description of the islands is increasingly controversial." However, I'd prefer the second sentence to start "This term for....." - it's not the description of the islands (as "an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe...") that is controversial, it's the term "BI" used for them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also i would just like to say looking back in the archives, when this matter was debated and Waggers stated it was wrong to start the article off by saying "it is a term.." you responded by saying "I can understand that position. Just trying to find a way through. " [5]. What exactly has changed? my position on this matter is the same as Waggers back then, although his argument was put better. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that has changed is that it's now been demonstrated that there are multiple contentious articles in which the formulation "X is a term which..." is used. I'm trying to make progress - your opinions, opposing change, are also preventing progress. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the "progress" (depends on your point of view if its good or bad progress) on wikipedia needs to be prevented. Ive said im happy for the compromise with the second sentence, but i can do nothing but strongly oppose the suggestion we change the intro to say this is a term, rather than a group of islands. If we change this, then we must change Great Britain, Ireland, Europe etc. because they are just terms too arnt they? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Plainly, "British Isles" is a "term" - "Terms are words and compound words that are used in specific contexts." So, what's wrong with: "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This term for the islands is increasingly controversial...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing at all, i said above id support the second sentence mentioning the problem. Im strongly opposing the idea we must put "The British Isles is a term..." in the first sentence. I thought thats what BHG was arguing about here. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the reference is in the first sentence or the second sentence seems to me to be a relatively minor matter. So, how would you feel about: "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands; this term for the islands is increasingly controversial...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldnt object to it although i think its best to deal with that in the second sentence rather than with a ;. I think there is a huge difference between starting an article with "The British Isles is a term..." and "The British Isles is a group of islands.." Clearly others do too which is why they are trying to push for term in the first sentence like that. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a good example: Earth. Editors will note that the intro is about physical and then human geography. Near the bottom it mentions social perspectives, including "flat earth" theories mentioned as an aside. We should be using a similar format here, with the "controversy" occupying the same amount space as the flat earth stuff, i.e. proportionate to its weight in reliable sources. Instead it takes up 50% of the intro. It's already violating NPOV by placing too much emphasis on a minority view. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And the term "Earth" is contentious... how, exactly? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, you are being uneccessarily and illogically provocative.

The claim that the earth is flat is a scientific issue, and there is no scientific evidence to support that contention ... but in this case the assertion that Ireland is a "British" island is not a scientific fact, it's a political POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is claiming the Republic of Ireland is part of the British islands, it is however backed up by many many reliable sources part of the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is an indisputable fact that the term "BI" can and is interpreted by some as implying or suggesting some form of territorial ownership by "Britain", in some sense. Whether that view is, in some eyes, "wrong", or "not what is intended", is irrelevant. How the term is perceived - by some other people in the islands (it doesn't really matter how many) or in other parts of the world - is what matters. WP needs to use terminology that does not give credence to an incorrect perception. Clarifying in the opening sentence (or two) that the term is open to misinterpretation, by referring to it explicitly as a "term", helps remove that incorrect perception. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I accept some people view if that way, thats why we state its controversial in huge detail in the second paragraph and im ok with it being added to the second sentence, but under no circumstances can i support this article starting out "The British Isles is a term..." and its clearly several others oppose such a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly why these disputes become so difficult :(

An answer of "under no circumstances can I support" rather than a genuine attempt to engage with why other editors want the term problematised is not an attempt to reach consensus, it's an attempt to apply a veto. That sort of approach works when there are votes to be counted, but not when the aim is produce a text which fairly represents the different points of view. It's really time that we had an RFC/U on this "no, no, no" approach, but I'll be away for the next few weeks so I can't do it yet.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its only been a few days since this latest attack on British Isles started, its certainly not time for a RFC on this matter, as for RFC/U if that is meant to be starting one about me on this matter, i think you need to read other peoples comments on here.. it is NOT just me who has opposed your proposal and had a problem with it. Ive been prepared to accept a compromise of adding the controversy to the second sentence, which is a big change from it just being in the second paragraph now. I think i have been very reasonable on this matter. Lets not forget i gave reasons why i oppose it, i have given such reasons on many occasions and its clear in the archives too. The "no no no" was your suggested wording and i agreed with it because there is no other thing to say on this matter. What else do you expect me to do ? I feel very strongly against something, it appears you think until i accept your proposal im some how in the wrong. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

But, BW, as has been said by many editors many times before, the fact that you personally feel very strongly about something is just not relevant, unless it is backed up by arguments which comply with WP policy and guidance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

With so much bickering on this article, I wonder if deleting the 'controversary' would be best? GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Such reasons have been stated above by myself and by others, but it appears people just refuse to accept them. I gave you the link to the archives where you said yourself "you could understand that position", of Waggers. That position is my reason for not wanting the first sentence in this article to start "British Isles is a term.." Even if i had no justifiable reasons at all, i still have the right to oppose a change i do not agree with. If it was just me, and everyone else agrees with the proposed change then i would simply be ignored and the change would take place no matter what my strong feelings are on this matter. But that change doesnt happen because others clearly oppose it too, but people seem to be making this about me. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, the same charge could be levelled at you and others. The relevant policy is here. Your opinion is irrelevant unless you provide reliable sources indicating more prominence should be given to the minority view than is currently the case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree, my personal opinion on the merits or otherwise of the term "British Isles" is indeed totally irrelevant. But I don't have a strong personal view on it and, even if I did, there is no reason for any other person editing this encyclopaedia to know what it might be. I don't "strongly oppose" anything - that is not my role here. But it is undeniable that "British Isles" is a term, the use of which is controversial, at least to some extent, in some circles or places. What I am seeking is a consensus, in accord with WP policies, to build a neutral encyclopaedia that clarifies, rather than confuses, the use of the term. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is insane. The lead is already 50% about the naming issue, and summarises practically nothing of most of the sections of the article (History, Political Cooperation, Sport, Language, Demographics ...) yet still a handful of editors are arguing to move this naming crap to the first sentence. BHG, this is not about producing "a text which fairly represents the different points of view", it is about producing a text which fairly represents the different points of view which have been published in reliable sources. There is no serious disagreement in credible sources about what the British Isles are - they are a group of islands, not a term. Your attempts to discredit/exclude BW's arguments simply because he is unwilling to "compromise" with you are a disgrace. --hippo43 (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43, compromising by reflecting both points of view is central to how WP:NPOV is achieved in wikipedia. If you regard seeking that as a "disgrace", then I'm happy to be disagraceful.

You want reliable sources? Great! Because I do as well. Luckily there are plenty, including several already used in the article

• An Irishman's Diary Myers, Kevin; The Irish Times (subscription needed) 09/03/2000, Accessed July 2006 "millions of people from these islands - oh how angry we get when people call them the British Isles".
• Social work in the British Isles by By Malcolm Payne, Steven Shardlow When we think about social work in the British Isles, a contentious term if ever there was one, what do we expect to see?
• The Times: "New atlas lets Ireland slip shackles of Britain".
• Written Answers - Official Terms", Dáil Éireann - Volume 606 - 28 September, 2005.
• Bertie Ahern's Address to the Joint Houses of Parliament, Westminster, 15 May 2007
• Tony Blair's Address to the Dáil and Seanad, November 1998
• British Culture of the Postwar: An Introduction to Literature and Society, 1945-1999, Alistair Davies & Alan Sinfield, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 0415128110, Page 9.
• The Reformation in Britain and Ireland: An Introduction, Ian Hazlett, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2003, ISBN 0567082806, Chapter 2

How many more refs do we need? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably several thousand actually? Google Books lists 19,750 books using the term - I think that it suggests it might be quite well used. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Problematising!!!??? So where does that word come from? As to the issue being discussed, the term British Isles is only a problem for a small minority. As such, its problematic nature does not merit a mention in the lead paragraph. Put another way, it's only a very very samll problem, unlike the problems associated with many of the other terms mentioned. MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Whaaaat?? Do you mean that the govt of Ireland is a "small minority" and its perspective should therefore be ignored?

BTW, for problematising see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/problematize. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not ignored; it is mentioned. But not in the first paragraph. If we included it we'd have to include the opinion of the British Government and the Tynwald for balance. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, that's a bit silly ... becauseunless you have any evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume that the statement that "the British Isles is" reflects British govt policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It would look silly certainly, that was my point, but we certainly can't assume that "British Isles" reflects UK government policy - in the UK it's a non-controversial geographic term and nothing more. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BHG, of course there are references to support the term's being contentious. I fully accept that it is, and it's not a term I have any personal attachment to. WP:NPOV, however, supports including all significant views which have been published, in proportion to their coverage. In this case, the proportion of coverage of the British Isles which focuses on the name being contentious is tiny. If you truly are keen to balance this article's lead, in line with WP:NPOV, why are you not arguing for more coverage on the history/geography/culture/language/demographics/economy etc of these islands? Because you are pushing a particular POV perhaps? --hippo43 (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a wild guess, but probably it's because all those specific aspects are more fully, and better, covered in the articles on UK, Ireland (both island and state), Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales and so on, all of which clearly relate to either a geographical area or a political entity (or both). All of which raises the question of why this article is needed, other than to say that it is a term used by some to describe a collection of those other entities. There are POVs on both sides - neither "outweighs" the other. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No that's not how Wikipedia works. If a body of reliable sources describe something in a particular way, and that body exists in a greater proportion to any other set of sources describing the same thing then the larger body gets precedence of coverage. Hippo43 just quoted from the relevant section - which I have repeatedly linked to - I am left wondering if some contributors here have read it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle, I suppose the reason this article exists is to help readers, particularly who want to find out about the British Isles. If they want to delve deeper into some of the topics it covers, they can follow the links. If they want to read about the United Kingdom in detail, there is an article for them. If they then want to read about Shropshire, there is another article for them. Similarly, there are articles on the Iberian Peninsula, Balkans, Balearic Islands etc serving the same purpose. If you don't think it is needed, why are you making such a fuss about how the lead covers the name?? --hippo43 (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Not me making any fuss - just responding to those who are making a fuss by falsely claiming that there's nothing to make a fuss about. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that there is something to make a fuss about, but I don't agree that a proportionate fuss is being made. So I'm making a fuss about it. --hippo43 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ghmyrtle has made an important point above. There would be a lot fewer issues if this article simply talked about British Isles as a geographical term (maybe a page) rather than in effect replicating material that is better covered elsewhere. --Snowded ^TALK 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There might be "fewer issues" among editors on this talk page, but so what? How does that help readers interested in the subjects that the article covers? Loads of material is covered in multiple places in Wikipedia, so what? If readers want to read about the demographics of the British Isles, as opposed to the demographics of Wales, or the UK, or Dublin, this is the article for them. Your opinion that these subjects are better covered elsewhere is worthless, and the British Isles is not a geographical term, but a geographical entity. --hippo43 (talk)

@Wiki-Ed, Ghmyrtle's wild guess gets it right. There is no need for a collective article to cover the culture, economy, etc of these islands, because they don't share a common culture or economy. The "British Isles" is a geopolitical concept used by British writers to describe an area to which they wish to ascribe their concept of Britishness, and that is its primary significance. I'm quite happy for all those supposedly collective issues to be discussed in the article if people can find sources which actually discuss these things through a "British Isles" lens, but I unsurprisingly that seems to be difficult in most cases. The artificiality of the construct is best illustrated by the way in which the main articles linked for most headings (culture, sport, transport, geography etc) are in not "Foo in the British Isles" but a duo of "Foo in Ireland" and "Foo in the United Kingdom". That's because it makes no sense to write a substantive "British Isles" article under most of these headings, and their collective coverage in this article makes something akin to WP:COATRACK; it's a whole load of spurious syntheses hung together on a contentious and artificial construct.

Don't get me wrong, I quite agree that the concept is notable, and we should have an article on it. But the fact that the concept exists does not make it appropriate to introduce this hotly-contested concept as an unqualified fact, nor to use it as the foundation for a pile of wholly unreferenced synthesis such as the demography section.

However, I don't expect that this point will make any impact until we start deleting these synthesising sections from this bizarrely fantastic article. After all, the practice is that when the British describe their worldview, it's a fact, but when the Irish describe a different one, it's POV. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That’s quite an interesting contention given your apparent POV. Appending a huge graph on the Irish famine is certainly using this article as a coat-rack; the article on the "British Isles naming controversy" is certainly a coat-rack. However, this article itself is not. It is a geographical term and the article covers physical and human geography. The latter is more detailed than it should be and I would agree that it bears some signs of synthesising. For example the section on culture is not really relevant to human geography, especially the way it’s being used… as a coat-rack.

Anyway, there’s no point banging on about neutrality when you keep asserting that “The "British Isles" is a geopolitical concept used by British writers to describe an area to which they wish to ascribe their concept of Britishness”. While you’re entitled to an opinion we simply don’t recognise what you’re talking about. It might be a burning issue in some places, but not in the UK, which is where you're asserting this is all happening. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's not a burning issue in the UK. Why would it be? It's a burning issue in the places where the assumed Britishness of Ireland is questioned.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you agree that British Isles is a "geographical term". I think it's more appropriate to call it geopolitical, but at least we agree that it's a "term". I presume you'll agree to the article being amended to reflect that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything is a "term". It doesnt mean we start all articles off by saying "***** is a term...." BritishWatcher (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So you'd have no objection changing the British Islands article then I take it? --HighKing (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"The British Islands is a group of territories in north-western Europe with constitutional ties to the UK. In British Law, the British Islands include the following four states..." ? No objection from me. --hippo43 (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would object to such a change, the "British islands" is a legal term describing a specific area, its not a well known geographical location, the closest example would be England and Wales which is described as a "legal unit". Its interesting to note all the sources for the British Islands article are legal ones, and that "British Islands" is used when talking about completly different things, we saw that with the mistake someone made when talking about the British West Indies on one article. A google search will find you "British Islands" which are not talking about anything in the British Isles. Also Encyclopedia Britannica which was hailed above as a strong source, does not even have an article on "British Islands". The two things are very different, and a debate would be needed at that article to make such a change but yes id oppose it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not seriously suggesting that we change that article's lead. My point is that there are other ways to go that are still accurate without using the word "term". "The British Islands, in British Law, is a group of territories in NW Europe. It includes..." for example. You're right, it's not a well known as a geographical location, but it is a geographic location with a clear legal definition. --hippo43 (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "The British Islands, in British Law, is a group of territories in NW Europe. It includes..." i would have no problem at all with that wording, i just think the British law bit is vital and if its put in the second sentence it wont sound like thats the primary use for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The current wording in the first sentence on this page is clearly backed up by reliable sources and there is no justification for change in either case. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another straw man, BW. Could you go easy on them a bit? That straw is needed to build warm houses, and it's a pity to waste it.

I don't see anybody arguing here that all articles startoff by saying "***** is a term....". But there are several examples of other articles which do start off in that way, and there are reasons to treat this one in the same way. --10:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I saw a compromise

Hang on, I saw a compromise form of words above that seemed generally acceptable, but people were too busy arguing to notice it.

This sentence emerged above and seemed to attract rather less half-bricks than usual

• The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands: this description of the islands is increasingly controversial..

Is this still tolerable to most people [I don't expect anyone to be content, but is there equality of misery?]. --Red King (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would accept that BritishWatcher (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Red King, it's an OK compromise in theory, but when I try slotting it into the existing article it produces ugly effects. The existing opening sentence leads naturally into the next sentence which discusses the geography, but introducing the controversy at the end of the 1st sentence breaks up that flow.

Current wording is:

The British Isles is a group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.

This compromise sentence with would leave us with:

The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands: this description of the islands is increasingly controversial. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland."

If we mention the controversy earlier in the sentence, it flows much better, whichever words we use for the controversy/dispute:

The British Isles is a [disputed/controversial/increasingly controversial] [term/name] for a [[archipelago/group of islands] off the northwest coast of continental Europe that includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. There are two sovereign states located on the islands: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Ireland.

I know that BW objects to the 3rd phrasing, but it does read better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No thanks to any of the above suggestions. Placing the controversy in the first sentence is way too prominent, for all the reasons explained by numerous editors above. --hippo43 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hippo43, you appear to have just rejected the existing wording. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BHG, how so? The existing wording was not suggested by anyone in this section, as far as I can understand. --hippo43 (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct i oppose the suggested wording. There is no need to put that in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was ignored because it's unacceptable to either side. From my perspective the current intro is already a compromise. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether we can find a perfect wording acceptable to all - I would guess (!) we can't. But what we can find is a wording which most people think is better than the current wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think the compromise is better along the lines of.. "The British Isles is an archipelago off the northwest coast of continental Europe, which includes Great Britain, Ireland and numerous smaller islands. This description of the islands is increasingly controversial..." Rather than tagging on the controversial stuff to the first sentence in such a way shown above. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

leaving the debate aside for the moment, i see the introduction currently says "the British Isles is a group" that use to say are a group. Are we using the correct word or was that left from the recent changes incorrectly? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That was from this edit [6] by an editor with no recent contributions to this article. Probably a question for owners of "Eats, Shoots and Leaves". Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BW's compromise is close, but either has to the "United Kingdom and Ireland" to denote the two States, or "Britain and Ireland" to denote the two islands. I think the latter is better --Snowded ^TALK 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally reject what is being proposed. The article is about the British Isles, not about any perceived controversy, for which in any case there's a whole article to satisy the needs of those who believe there actually is a controversy. I am more than happy with the current lead paragraph. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there should be no mention whatsoever of "the controversy" in the lead section. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For heavens sake! I've just re-read the lead - slowly - and of course the whole second paragraph is about this .. controversy. I wonder what the discussion above is really all about. It's certainly not about informing the readers of this article about the British Isles, it seems to be all about elevating the issue of dislike of the term as high as possible. If it goes in the first parpagraph then the article is, in effect, more about "the controversy" than it is about the islands, and that is totally wrong. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

()MidnightBlueMan talks about "perceived controversy" as if it was not a real issue. Britannica calls the term increasingly controversial. If it's just perception, then it's a controversy that's perceived by Britannica. 89.204.226.99 (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is why we have an entire second paragraph in the introduction on it. There really is no need for change except to make a few people less unhappy with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

...and make a few other people more unhappy with it. --hippo43 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's the accuracy of Wikipedia. I couldn't care less if you or anyone else is happy or unhappy. I care that Wikipedia is accurate. At the moment there's reference that the term is not only controversial, but "increasingly controversial". 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the issue of the term being increasingly controversial is dealt with in the article already. I am also concerned about the accuracy of wikipedia, and that includes giving material appropriate weight. I see no reason to elevate some people's dislike of the name above every other topic relating to the islands. As others have pointed out, the article is about the islands, not the name. --hippo43 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not dealt with in the article. The fact that alternative terms are increasingly preferred is dealt with, not the fact that the term itself is increasingly controversial. As for appropriate weight, Britannica's placement of the controversy says it all. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well i dont have a problem with it saying increasingly controversial in relation to Ireland, in the first sentence of the second paragraph. But thats as far as im prepared to go now because we are going round in circles. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so the article doesn't currently say "increasingly" controversial. So what? Many other sources, including others cited here, don't use that word either. Why is Britannica such an authority on the wording and weight of this topic? Because it reflects your preference? Policy demands we reflect what is published by all reliable sources, not just one. --hippo43 (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

()So is there a single source which says it isn't increasingly controversial? As for the question "Why is Britannica such an authority?", it sums up the problems with some editors here, who put their own supposed knowledge in front of published, verifiable, reputable sources. FFS..."why is Britannica such an authority?". You've got to be kidding. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not kidding. Britannica is a tertiary source, so not an ideal source here, at least in terms of policy, and there are several other sources used which relate more specifically to this issue. This has nothing to do with my own knowledge - as far as I can see, none of the other "published, verifiable, reputable sources" cited use the phrase "increasingly controversial", so there are obviously numerous ways to phrase the fact that the name of the islands is unacceptable to some. Your insistence on using the words used by only one source is not NPOV. --hippo43 (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And if you have so much respect for Britannica, presumably you wuldn't object to the lead also containing their phrase "the term British Isles has a long history of common usage"? --hippo43 (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, or something like it, being in the lead. Why would I? It's verifiable and AFAIK (for what little that's worth) it's also true. As for Britannica being a tertiary or secondary source, tertiary sources are fine for general comment and that's what the lead is. Common sense, which is also part of WP policy on sources, means that Britannica is a perfectly good source. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't argued that Britannica isn't a good source, just that it doesn't over-rule every other source. As I understand it, the lead should summarise the rest of the article, therefore should reflect the (preferably secondary) sources which are used in the body of the article. There is simply no need to rely on a separate tertiary source to summarise a topic for us. --hippo43 (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not overly interested in the content of this article. However, I will accept the argument of having the 'controversy' in the 2nd paragraph, as a compromise between having it in the 1st paragraph or deleting it all together. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no other source that Britannica is "over-ruling". Britannica is in line, plus it's a far better source than some guy called hippo43 or another called BritishWatcher. 89.204.227.26 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology section

The first references to the islands as a group appeared in the writings of travellers from the ancient Greek colony of Massalia Supposed References: Foster P1 Allen, p. 172-174.. I have discussed the lack of a relevant reference with Wiki-Ed/ Tony Sidaway with little joy yet. Þjóðólfr (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Allen says (p7) "References to the islands of Albion and Ierne (Britain and Ireland) also date from the same period - in his famous voyage along the Atlantic coasts of Western Europe in the 4th century BC, the explorer Pytheas of Massalia refers to them as the "Pretannic Isles" that lay to the north of the lands of the Celts."

This is good enough for me.

Massalia was a Greek trading port in a location which is now occupied by the modern-day French city of Marseille.

Like much writing of the period, the original work has been lost and is only known from reports by later writers. --TS 19:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And how exactly do we know how many islands were being grouped in the "Pretannic Isles"? Perhaps Atlantis was included. And Thule. Perhaps the Channel Islands weren't. At best, all we can state is that a group of islands were identified as the Pretannic Isles along the Atlantic coasts of Western Europe which included Britain and Ireland. Do we know any more? --HighKing (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

HighKing is right. Unless he was remarkably prescient in the use of the English language and alphabet, Pytheas did not refer to the isles as the "Pretannic Isles". He used a Greek term, which is capable of various alternative translations - "Pretannic Isles", "Bretannic Isles", "Pretannic Islands", "British Islands", "British Isles" etc. etc. This supposed "first use", in a different language, is not the actual first use of the term "British Isles". Obviously, it just isn't. Here we go again.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)We've been through this before. Its not clear Pytheas is talking about "the British Isles" and the authority here states that the origins were in Dee. Its OR to impute it from a tangential reference. --Snowded ^TALK 20:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick warning to everyone here. A certain, single editor, has a tendancy to insert controversial statements into articles with false references. He does infact have a references to support what he says, but will only produce that reference after a long drawn out battle of attrition. I suspect that this person was permanently banned several years ago, by Jimbo Wales no less. Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What was his 'primary' account? GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you would need to look for an editor, new to this topic, but with an encyclopedic knowledge of the subject matter. Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but casting asparagus is not exactly how we try to behave here. --HighKing (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Be Forewarned. Þjóðólfr (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It is blatantly obvious that classical writers believed that Pytheas, a traveler, was referring to the British Isles, and modern writers do not seriously challenge this. The Pytheas voyage is described briefly in two single-volume encyclopedias in my possession: the MacMillan Encyclopedia and the Cambridge Encyclopedia. It isn't just some crap somebody made up. And that's my last statement on this matter in which my opinion was solicited. --TS 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the point of this section was stir up trouble and cast aspersions on other editors, not to seek independent scrutiny, but thank you anyway. I would invite Users Highking, Ghmyrtle, Snowded and Þjóðólfr to provide some countervailing references to corroborate their seemingly revisionist perspectives on history, anthropology, and language... but from past experience I see little point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You know the reference Wiki_Ed you just don't like it --Snowded ^TALK 10:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Snowded, I don't know "the" reference. When I said "countervailing references" I meant a body of sources which carries the same weight as the current set [7] and contradicts what they say. Your use of the singular suggests you only have one in mind.Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh hang on... you're not referring to the dictionary and Dee again are you...? Sigh. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is that there is no evidence that the group of islands described by Pytheas and others in antiquity is precisely the same group of islands, or that the term they used has the same connotations, as what was later termed, in English, the "British Isles". They may be broadly the same set of islands, which is why many references treat them as the same, but it is the details that are important to this page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The point is: that's not what the sources say. Read them. They are unequivocal about the relationship. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He has made some of my colleagues day however, called me a revisionist in anthropology, I may never live it down  ;-) --Snowded ^TALK 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From this I would assume that either (a) you are a revisionist anthropologist and are not afraid to admit it, or (b) you are not a revisionist anthropologist and your colleagues find the idea that you could be amusing. Either way, that's not what I said, but nevermind. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(b) Wiki-Ed and the point I was making, but you missed, is that you should address the content issues not speculate as to other editors. --Snowded ^TALK 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you really surprised that other editors speculate about your motives when all you've added to this section is speculation? Come back with some reliable sources, as requested, and we'll have something to talk about. How many times have I said this? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not remotely surprised at your response WIki-Ed, one of the things I specialize in is pattern recognition in micro-narratives. As you know only too well (as you were involved) this has been discussed before, the sources quoted. It was only too predicable that people would simply wait and then come back with the same arguments and the same sources. There is no speculation in my comments, just a tried resignation and a request to you to reference the past discussion. And yes I do mean the dictionary and Dee, it is an authoritative source which specifically defines the origins. All the material you support here is OR as far as imputing first use, something you should know well. Your editing on British Empire has relied on far less authoritative single sources to support a controversial statement, try to be a little more consistent, it would help your credibility--Snowded ^TALK 17:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one needs to be specialised in "pattern recognition in micro-narratives" to understand how editors respond here. The speculation in your initial comment was in discussing what Pytheas meant; you may have doubts but historians do not. There are several reliable secondary historical sources explaining the etymology; against them a single tertiary source justified using a highly contrived argument (which is OR). So we keep on banging our own drums, but then User:Þjóðólfr tried to get a third opinion and that editor sided with the secondary sources. Surprised? I wasn't. As for the BE article, the issue there was totally different, as you know full well. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No you don't, but WIkipedia provides endless public domain data for those of us who do. Lets make it simple, we have the OED defining the etymology as relating to Dee. That is authoritative. Against that we have multiple references using language that many or may not mean British Isles. One source which has linked it was show to be problematic. This is a legitimate position supported by several editors. The alternative is (I think) original research. You may not agree with that position, but given the range and histories of the editors involved you should at least respect it. --Snowded ^TALK 20:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford etymological dictionary seems to provide a history only for modern English insofar as it traces the term back to early modern English. It goes no further than that, (presumably because it is more difficult to trace a definitive evolutionary route). Asserting that Dee is the root of the term on this basis is a POV that is not supported by any other source. Historians are happy to go further and while you continue to suggest that they are being misinterpreted, they are very clear. Some of the cited references cover this very discussion. Have you read them? For example, even Norman Davies accepts these origins in The Isles. That he, of all authors, does not take up an opportunity to try and disparage the term should say something. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't call a statement by the OED POV WIki-Ed, it traces it back to a clear origin of the modern use. It is precisely that which is important. Sorry, we work of citations that do not involve a POV integration (something you are very happy to argue in other contexts). We have been here before, there are no new arguments, there is no POV in using an authoritative support. --Snowded ^TALK 22:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the dictionary was opinionated, I said your interpretation of what it says is. And can you stop referring to it as the "OED". It's not the Oxford English Dictionary, the source you're using is the etymological dictionary. The latter is the only version that could be misunderstood to suggest the term sprang out of nowhere in 1577, the former (in any flavour which provides etmylogical detail) indicate the same roots as this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And later classical authors included places like Thule (probably Iceland) in the group. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article Thule you will see that in Classical times it probably referred to the Orkneys or Shetlands. The name was only later applied to Iceland. ðarkuncoll 11:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've read the article on WP on Thule. I've also read the actual references which say that - in all probability - Thule referred to Iceland or possibly parts of Norway in classical times. WP articles are - unfortunately - notoriously unreliable. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

So what, anyway? Britain and Ireland are the two main islands in all accounts, and all the others are peripheral. ðarkuncoll 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But if other areas which are not included now were included then, then that's very relevant. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the situation is precisely analogous to Europe. This is a term that origininated in Ancient Greek and has come into English and other languages in variant forms. Furthermore, it is a term with no strict definition on the periphery - where does Europe end? Its recognised extent has changed with time and culture. So, it's entirely irrelevant that the Channel Isles were not part of the BI in ancient times, but are now, or that "Thule" (whatever it was) was, but (depending on what it was) might or might not be now. I also accept that the definition might eventually evolve one day to exclude Ireland - but this has most assuredly not happened yet, except perhaps to a tiny minority of people who use the term. ðarkuncoll 13:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Tacitus It was only established the Britain was an Island circa AD85? (and that Ireland was an Island? God knows when). Strabo did not even know where Ireland was let alone what it was. The section opening sentence is complete bunkum. Example ref Example ref Þjóðólfr (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So you've inserted a synthesis tag on the basis of a theory you've just invented by synthesising material from two sources which disagree with one-another (about Tacitus). You've assumed a lot from the meaning of a single sentence in Mattingly where other authors go into a lot more detail, in particular on Pytheas' circumnavigation of the isles four centuries earlier. More importantly, the references you've provided don't actually contradict the existing references; Bradley even supports what is said (pg.2). I suppose I should at least acknowledge that you tried to find some sources, but if that's the best you can do the tag cannot remain. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Pytheas#The "circumnavigation" Þjóðólfr (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

<> And oh look, the article on Europe (which user TharkunColl mentions) has a long section on how the definition of the term "Europe" has changed over time and on how usage and definition varies. Funny that. 213.155.151.233 (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New section

(BW: I've stuck your post under a new subheading since the insertion was a "bold" edit)

Just to say what ever that awful image that got added and has been removed today was, please do NOT re add it to this article. 1RR remains in force, and if someone puts that silly image (ive not got a clue what it was) back in.. i will request the page be restored to the stable version by an admin and the person who added it dealt with for breaking the 1RR. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Þjóðólfr, presumably hoping to make a case for Britain not being "known" to be an island until AD85 and thus undermine the rest of the secton. Unfortunately:

(a) Hecateus and his map predate the Greek discovery of the islands, so it is no surprise that the map doesn't show them.

(b) The Greeks and Romans had separate names for both islands well before Tacitus. They were even debating the measurements. More information was extracted from the source [8] than it provides.

(c) Diodorus was not writing at the time Caesar invaded Britan. He had ceased writing by 60BC. Caesar first invaded in 55BC. We wouldn't want to infer that Caesar informed Diodorus' writings.

The only legitimate point was regarding Marcian of Heraclea possibly needing a reference. I would say it's not contentious, but it seems every sentence must be referenced here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

John Dee: no longer an imperialist?

Who got away with removing the many references attesting to his imperialist beliefs and writings? And what is the wikipedia editor in question trying to hide? Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Following a discussion in July - see archive 31 - the claim was identified as synthesis and removed. The sentence was subsequently moved to the etymology section because placing it in the lead gave it undue weight. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol and if you believe that...Þjóðólfr (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember how it all happened, DG. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Poor old Johnny Dee, all down the centuries astrologers have always been given a hard time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...and yet he is not the only charlatan in our little invention - Strabo accused Pytheas of bullshit. Þjóðólfr (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removals and additions

Hello BI watchers. In the latest batch of removals and additions there's nothing much to write home about, except perhaps a couple of additions; Charles W. Fisher and Top Channel (Korinthia). Each of these probably wants correcting, or at least re-wording, if anyone can be bothered to do the spade work - e.g where precisely was Fisher born, and where precisely does Top Channel get its material from? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

brush up on your geography

The Republic of ireland is not part of the British Isles. Do you really want to perpetuate the inaccuracy?97.126.21.240 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What's this "Republic of Ireland" that you mention? I know of no state with that name. ðarkuncoll 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done, TharkunColl; you have finally learnt some remedial facts about modern Ireland, in particular the difference between the Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland. Not bad. Next you might find out that Ulster is not the same as Northern Ireland. And then maybe some day you will finally accept that the empire is over and Ireland is accordingly not part of what you, in your adorable nostalgia for putting John Bull's boot upon the Irish people, like to term the British Isles. In the meantime, the rookie above is at heart correct in his instincts. He must be Irish, or British of the Tony Benn variety. He is clearly not signed up to the "British Isles" agenda of modern British nationalists. Alas, says you. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the article, not on editors. Canterbury Tail talk 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Howdy IP.97.126.21.240. That's been the core of the disputes concerning the term 'British Isles'. Recommend that one refrain from using 'British Isles' when visiting the republic. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

British Isles usage, some general issues

Interested editors may care to have a look at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force#Getting Silly?. There are continuing issues concerning the addition and deletion of British Isles which are being debated there and at Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples. In the absence of a British Isles notice board I'm placing this alert here. You will note my proposal is yet another moratorium on insertions and deletions. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors may also want to look at the detailed discussions here (per Midnightblue's second reference) and contribute. --Snowded ^TALK 21:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

use of british isles in ireland(republic)

I’ve travelled for the last four years around the twenty six counties, and have heard the term British Isles on countless occasions from all sorts of people. My own boss who has hardly stepped foot out of Mayo uses the term all the time. The problem with 'Irish wiki people' is they can stand that majority of Irish people don’t hold the same venom and inferiority complex to the British as they do,Petroltimer (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should say that because I've been travelling around Britain for years and on countless occasions from all sorts of people I hear them say that they think the term British Isles is a politically motivated term used by only the most backward and jingoistic British people. The problem with "British wiki people" is clearly that they cannot stand that Britain is no longer a world power and they are trying to reassert a former dominance by using the term "British Isles" to claim ownership of Ireland/opposition to the EU. Quite pathetic, really. 86.44.57.151 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked this before, but I'll do so again - how come we get so many anonymous editors repeating the same old anti-British Isles political rhetoric (as if a geographical term that has existed for 2500 years could have anything to do with politics)? My guess is that all these anonymous IPs are the same person. ðarkuncoll 00:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said this before, but I'll do so again - how come we get the same incorrect and silly arguments about the term "British Isles" being 2500 years old? My guess is that there's a misunderstanding still.... --HighKing (talk) 02:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "misunderastanding" comes from those who wish, for political reasons, to dissociate the English term from its Latin and Greek origins. ðarkuncoll 09:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's those who, for political reasons, try to disassociate from the imperialistic origins of this terms usage which is carried on today in an oh-so-unsubtle manner? Or both? --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous IPs are undoubtedly a user called Dunlavin Green (as we all know anyway). His comment above is laughable, and if using the word "lie" was allowed I would use it to describe his assertion above. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a clear breach of WP:AGF and I expect a wandering admin will issue you with a warning. Any minute now. --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not Dunlavin Green? MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't *know* that it is or it isn't. Unless you've proof, it's bad form and a breach of policy to name someone in this way. --HighKing (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never been to the republic, I've no 'first hand' clue as how the BI term is treated in general conversations. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay - what a coincidence! You've just caused an edit conflict with me and since I also recieved a message at the same time I lost what I was writing, but that's not the coincidence; this is it, and in answer to HK's request for proof above: Remember a while back a certain user called you a gobshite for forcing him into an edit conflict? Well you may recall that the user in question didn't initially log on but following the 'ec' he did log on and continued his rant. That user was Dunlavin Green and his IP range was 86.44. Now couple that with the fact that Dunlavin Green has a very particular style (well read academic, bleating on about historical aspects of the Ango-Irish relationship as though they still applied today) and that style is mirrored by 86.44 above and elsewhere, I'd say that was pretty conclusive proof. Waht do you reckon? MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A Hallowen mystery? GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely! MidnightBlue (Talk) 14:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't allow the fact that IP 86.44... is Eircom which has (according to WP) 49% of the market get in the way of your "pretty conclusive proof" ClemMcGann (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't. 86.44... does't equate to 49% of the market though. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodday, I have often used BI in Dublin and only one person gave me a jokingly mild reproof. And most of my friends were northsiders as well. But I have never used it in a political sense, just geographical. Irish author Dervla Murphy uses it in her book, A Place Apart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

BI is always a heated topic around here. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I never had any problems with using it, but I agree it's better to use Britain and Ireland at Wikipedia. Unless Brish Isles can be used in its stead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I too am not offended by it's usage or non-usage. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Irish Free State refusing to use the term 'British Isles' in the following link. http://www.rte.ie/sport/2009/1114/saturdaysport.html. Play Brian Moore (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

First para. revisited

Months ago I made an edit that was shortly thereafter reverted. It was explained in the discussion page at the time that a poll influencing that type of edit was recenlty concluding. Having waited for some time, I returned to find the discussion archieved. The most pertinent part of which is, for me, the following:

Thank you for the reply. I wish I had known about the poll earlier. However, the results fo the poll itself would not seem to solve the problem in this particular paragraph. That is: Even if "Ireland" is polled as the "preferred" term for the political entity, "Republic of Ireland" is still a viable alternative and, if so, would be the best solution to differentiating it from the term "Ireland" used earlier in the same paragraph to refer to the geographic entity. Basically, the problem of using the same word twice in the same paragraph to mean two very different things will not be addressed by any of this, it seems to me. Shoreranger (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some resolution on this now, please? Thanks. Shoreranger (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the general agreement is that where the context is clear, Ireland should be used. Given that the second sentence starts off by talking about sovereign sates the context is clear. I for one would not object to the first sentence simply saying that the British Isles refers to a group of Islands off the north west coast of Europe, and then have the second sentence list the political entities. THat would avoid confusion and might even reduce tension. --Snowded ^TALK 21:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)