Talk:British Isles/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Note to all users

Note to all users - This is a talk page for the British Isles article. When using this page please remember Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. In paticular, a number of users have broken the following two guidelines on this page in the past; please make sure that you understand them:

Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.

Talk pages are not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral.

--Robdurbar 12:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Candidate for Wikipedia's worst article

I know I've banged on about this before, but this article really is appalling. It's been hijacked by those who want to stir up the imaginary "controversy" about the terminology. The so-called controversy is mentioned in the banner heading and the lead. Then there's a whole section, which covers almost 50% of the article. I'm thinking all of this should be removed from this article and put elsewhere, either in a brand new article, or at the Terminology article. British Isles should only mention the so-called controversy in passing. This article should really be about geography. After all, the term is principally geographic. Arcturus 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should the info on the controversy not be on Wikipedia? If you don't want to read about it, then don't. It doesn't do any harm, it doesn't mislead, its written from a neutral point of view. I don't paticularly agree with all of it, but in the end only 1 paragraph of a 4 paragraph introduction mentions the controversy, plus the sourced banner. After that it has its own perfectly ignorable section.

Rob, I'm not saying reference to the controvesy should be removed from Wikipedia. I'm just saying that it's dominating this article in a way that I believe it shouldn't. Of course we should write about it, but elsewhere. The terminology article would be a better location than this article, or perhaps we should have a new article about it. Arcturus 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The BI(t) page is a page for clarifying the proper definitions of terminology within the British Isles - a discussion of the term British Isles itself is no more appropriate there than it is here.

I beg to differ. It's the terminology that's the problem - for a minority. So the terminology article is surely where it should be described. Arcturus 17:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to readress the balance, write some more about the geography, history, culture or biology of the islands. --Robdurbar 09:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is bad but I'm pretty sure that trying to eliminate mention of the controversy will only make it worse - and entirely unmanageable..hughsheehy, 10:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Simultaneous (to the above) discussion about note at top of talk

Rubbish do not tell me what I can, and can't, edit in Wikipedia. I'm going to remove the above instruction when others have seen what I'm on about. Arcturus 21:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

No one's telling you anything; Its just repeating a guideline because a number of users have repeatedly broken it on this page. It has been there since May and not one user has complained untill now--Robdurbar 09:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Instruction removed and replaced with a suggestion. Arcturus 13:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'd removed this page from my watchlist then forgot about it completely. The rweoding is much better thanks --Robdurbar 09:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pliny

Can we have some proof that Pliny included Iceland in the term, or had even heard of it? TharkunColl 18:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could read Pliny (the Elder) in his Naturalis Historiae. You can find Pliny in Latin and English online or in a few good academic Bookstores.

If you´re only interested in this specific topic go to Book IV, Chapter 30 (the chapter on Brittania/Brittaniae, since chapter numbering isn´t always consistent) and read his description of Britannia (the island) and the islands around it, which he calls Brittaniae.

In VERY approximate order (and the order can be different in Latin and English because of sentence structure), he lists Britain (which he says was formerly known as Albion), Hibernia (Ireland), the Orkneys, then the islands between Britain and Ireland (Anglesea, the Isle of Man, Rathlin, etc), then one of the Friesan islands (which is strange because he listed most of them in the previous chapter - although Ameland may have been further from the mainland than it is now and would probably have had different inhabitants), then Thule (most commonly interpreted to be Iceland, although some feel it may be in modern Norway), then Cornwall. There is also mention of islands off Brittany (probably including Ushant), and then some places which are probably around Bergen in Norway or even further north (although he quotes other writers as describing some of the last places). Although the Latin text prefaces the description of Thule/Iceland with the phrase "last of all", it is listed in Brittaniae before mention of Cornwall and since he describes the fact that there was no winter sun, he probably didn´t mean the Canaries or the Scillies!

Can I express some surprise that you´ve been such an active and often forceful participant on these pages and haven´t read this stuff?

Also, as a note of caution, since I may be reading the Latin wrong, I also read the 1855 English translation and I´m mostly basing my edit on that version. I´m hesitant to trust my Latin, since the last active use was in 1985 and that feels less reliable than a scholarly 1855 translation. Actually, I guess it´s possible that my knowledge of Latin is better than Pliny´s knowledge of geography, so maybe it´s not too bad ;-) hughsheehy 11:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed try to access those texts but was unable to for some reason. Can I request that you reproduce the relevant two sections here? In particular, I would like to know what word Pliny used for such places as Ameland and why we are so sure of the translation - and indeed what words he used for all the places. As for Thule, if he listed it as part of the group of islands between Britain and Ireland, then it is clearly not intended to be Iceland - what could it be? TharkunColl 11:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The text at Perseus is differently numbered than our references. 4.102 and 4.103 according to the article text are both 4.30 (Mayhoff, 1906 ed. Bostock, Riley, 1855 trans.) You need to be patient w/ Perseus, retry the links a few times if they do not work, but i was unable to find another copy online.EricR 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a further mention of Thule at 6.39 but only to state that it lies at a northern lattitude. Let me know if you still can't access the text, and i'll cut-and-paste it here.EricR 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The article assertion that Strabo may have included Iceland also looks questionable: 2.5.8.EricR 17:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

From Strabo..."Now Pytheas of Massilia tells us that Thule, the most northerly of the Britannic Islands, is farthest north, and that there the circle of the summer tropic is the same as the arctic circle. But from the other writers I learn nothing on the subject — neither that there exists a certain island by the name of Thule, nor whether the northern regions are inhabitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes the arctic circle." Strabo actually doubted that Thule even existed since there was very little source material (maybe none beyond Pytheas, who was a dodgy source), but included it in the "Britannic Islands". Now there can be LONG discussion on where Thule was, but the most widely held academic view seems to be that it was Iceland, even if this is not beyond argument. If not Iceland, the next most held view is that it was some part of Scandinavia. Personally I read all these sources with a pinch of salt.hughsheehy 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Islands (and island groups) listed by Plny as part of the Britanniae:

Albion/Britannia = Great Britain
Hibernia = Ireland
Orcades = Orkneys
Acmodae = Shetlands?
Haebudes = Hebrides?
Mona = Anglesey
Monapia = Isle of Man
Ricina = Racklin?
Vectis = White-Horn?
Linmus = Dalkey?
Andros = Bardsey? or Lambay?
Samnis = Sian (Britanny)?
Axantos = Ushant (Britanny)?
Glaesariae/Electrides = Oeland?, Gothland?, or Ameland?
Thule = Iceland?, many other theories.

The ones with question marks are frankly just guesswork by scholars. As for the islands supposedly off Britanny, we might as well (on just as much evidence) say that they are actually Jersey and Guernsey, thereby giving them a good modern justification for inclusion in the British Isles.

Much more interesting are those islands in the North Sea (German Sea), which almost certainly refer to islands now submerged (such as Lomea off Kent which was submerged in 1099). And Thule - what about Rockall?

Pliny also mentions a number of other places (Mictis, Scandia, Dumna, Nerigos), but he does not say that these were classed under the term Britanniae. TharkunColl 11:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The last line of the chapter on Britannia in the two English translations reads (with varied exact phrasing) "There be that make mention of others beside, to wit, Scandia, Dumna, and Bergos, and the biggest of all the rest Nerigos, from which men saile to Thule. Within one daies sailing from Thule, is the frozen sea, named of some Cronium." As far as I remember, these are the places that may represent anything up to and including the northern part of modern Norway. I can see no difference in the way these are described when compared to others in the same chapter, so I wonder how it is is possible to say that he does not include these if he does include the others in the same section. There is no break or anything that says anything like "the rest are not included under the term Brittaniae". This text is in both English translations (1601 and 1855) I have read but I cannot see it in the (incompletely proofed) online Latin version and without going to my father´s house and digging in the attic I don´t have a Latin version handy. hughsheehy 12:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very best their inclusion is ambiguous, and he introduces them in a fairly dismissive manner. TharkunColl 12:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

They are included (at least in the two English translations) in the Chapter on Britannia. Their inclusion in the Chapter on Britannia is not ambiguous. The actual locations those specific terms represent may be ambiguous or uncertain but there is published academic opinion that they are places in Scandinavia. Since Pliny´s been dead for nearly 2000 years I would love to know how you propose to provide verifiable evidence to support your view that he introduces them in "a fairly dismissive manner". I am just reading a chapter from Pliny (specifically the chapter on Britannia) and trying to summarise what is written. What are you trying to do? hughsheehy 13:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the question is, what are you trying to do? Here is what pliny says (Bostock):

"The most remote of all that we find mentioned is Thule, in which, as we have previously stated, there is no night at the summer solstice, when the sun is passing through the sign of Cancer, while on the other hand at the winter solstice there is no day. Some writers are of opinion that this state of things lasts for six whole months together."

Mention of Thule as the "most remote of all" clearly implies some sort of termination to the list. Pliny then goes on to say:

"Timæus the historian says that an island called Mictis is within six days' sail of Britannia, in which white load is found; and that the Britons sail over to it in boats of osier, covered with sewed hides."

Notice that Pliny specifically points out that Mictis (wherever it is) is 6 days away from Britain, thereby implying a further separation. Only then comes the part that you chose to quote:

"There are writers also who make mention of some other islands, Scandia namely, Dumna, Bergos, and, greater than all, Nerigos, from which persons embark for Thule. At one day's sail from Thule is the frozen ocean, which by some is called the Cronian Sea."

In context, these are clearly all places that are beyond the group of islands called the Britanniae, even though they are still in the general vicinity. And if they really do refer to the Scandinavian coast, for example, then Pliny is perfectly correct. TharkunColl 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I am trying to summarise what Pliny said by looking at two scholarly translations and their footnotes and (sometimes but not very often) trying to make sense of the original Latin. I do not feel competent to try to figure out which phrasing "clearly implies some sort of termination" of the list, nor to come back on a 2000 year old text and to decide which of the places on the list might "in context" be considered to be "beyond" the Britanniae. Neither - if I might note - did either of the two translators in 1601 or 1855.

Pliny lists all these places (and Mictis is generally interpreted as being Cornwall because of the reference to tin mining) in his text in the section where he says he will describe the Brittaniae.

Even if you want to argue that the places identified as being on the coast of Norway and also Cornwall were - based on your courageous interpretation of what he meant to imply and what can be inferred from context - clearly "beyond" the Britanniae, you´re still left with places in the North Sea east of Britain that have been identified as being in the modern Friesan islands, Ushant, etc.,etc.,etc., and the rather clear reference to Thule (Iceland).

Again, I find it strange to say that the text clearly implies that the coast of Norway (if that´s what the last few placenames represent - which seems to be the scholarly view) is clearly "beyond" the Britanniae when Thule (Iceland or possibly someplace else in Norway) clearly is in the list and thus would belong within Pliny´s Brittaniae. That seems an extremely odd interpretation of the text. Finally, on Mictis, I would personally interpret the meaning as more likely that the Britons that Pliny´s sources knew did not live in Cornwall and had to travel to get there, but that would be only my view, and is not in the edit. hughsheehy 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that Thule is Iceland, but it was a word that could be applied to all sorts of places. In this context it is clearly referring to a much smaller island somewhere off the coast of either Britain or Ireland. You may be right about Mictis being Cornwall, but by no stretch of the imagination is it 6 days sail from Britain. And again, islands off Britanny are a pure guess, and North Sea islands could be any number of islands (such as Lomea) that have since been submerged. TharkunColl 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't keep saying anything....I'm just trying to summarise refence texts. My view on Thule isn't enormously important. The majority of scholarly translators of Pliny say that Thule is - in this context - probably Iceland, but maybe parts of Norway. The classical geoographer's geography wasn't terribly good and Thule was indeed inclined to be used as a term to mean "the ends of the earth"....but in this case the scholarly view is that Pliny's Thule is either Iceland or maybe Norway.

Some scholars think that Mictis (spelled in a couple of different ways and sometimes missing the "M" might be the Isle of Wight, but most seem to view it as Cornwall, maybe specifically St. Michael's Mount. As for Lomea, I don't see any suggestion of it in any of the texts or interpretations and I know nothing about it.hughsheehy 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A nice map

I found an embossed map of the British Isles in an 1877 book by William Moon, inventor of Moon type. I put the image at Embossing. -- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Diodorus Siculus

Has anyone got a source for Diodorus Siculus other than the scanned 1814 version of his Library at Google Books or the (incomplete) versions on the Gutenberg project? The reason I ask is that the first reference to the Preteni on the British Isles page is given as being from Pytheas and from Diodorus Siculus (footnote 4 on the page). As far as I can see, Pytheas work has not survived, and I read the online version of Diodorus Siculus, but this has a different interpretation of the text than is quoted in the footnote currently in the Wikipedia edit.

The footnote states "Diodorus Siculus c.50BC: 'those of the Pretani who inhabit the country called Iris (Ireland)'".

In the scanned 1814 version in Google Books, the text is slightly different and has a footnote that interprets the term Iris differently. The 1814 text talks about "the Britains that inhabit Iris", with a footnote explaining that Iris is "some part of Britain, then so called." (the text is in Book V, Chapter II, page 317 of the 1814 version, easily found on Google Books)

Anyone got another version handy? Does anyone know who put in the footnote? It's a pretty important difference in the context of properly sourcing the origin of the term but dear old Diodorus isn't easy to find online.. I know this was mentioned above, in the discussion on the term Pretani, but that discussion got complicated and I'm just looking for a source reference.hughsheehy 18:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bump! Anyone? Hughsheehy 16:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no luck finding Book V online, though did find "...Ireland...by Diodorus Siculus Iris..." in Camden's Britannia [1]. Why is this a good passage to use for the footnote? Shouldn't we be looking for a use of Prettanikē or Pretannia rather than Pretani?

I ran across one source contradicting the "Later Romanised as 'Brittania'" part of the footnote:

Scholars agree that the name Pretani, which is thus implied as a general name for their inhabitants from at least the fourth century onwards, can hardly be identical with the name Britanni...It is a very probable conjecture that Caesar, finding himself at the outset of his expedition on the borders of a Belgic tribe called Britanni and knowing that the country he was about to invade had been lately colonized from Belgic Gaul, believed himself able to correct a widespread error by substituting the forms Britanni, Britannia, for Pretani and its Latinized correlative Pretania. Collingwood, R.G. (1990). Roman Britain and the English Settlements. pp. p. 31. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

and one in support:

One of the earliest surviving texts to use the Britannia name was written by the Greek geographer Diodorus Siculus and it is widely accepted that he was drawing heavily on Pytheas. The actual name used by Diodorus was Pretannia, which in the original source would have been Prettanikē...By the first century BC the P had become B and the nickname given to the people of the island by the Gaulish Celts began to be used by Classical authors as the name of the island – Britannia. Cunliffe, Barry (2003). The Celts: Very Short Introduction. pp. p. 86. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

EricR 20:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi... can you tell me the name of the book from the link you gave? I can´t see it on the page. I´ve seen various ideas for the Pretani/Britannia switch, but some indeed seem to view the Pretani term as a sort of catch-all term for "here be painted barbarians" and the term Britain as a post-Julius name for a specific people. For me the most interesting area is the years between the Romans and Sebastian Munster´s 1550 Map, when the term Britain and British existed, but I can´t find a single reference to the British Isles.....even on English/British maps from the middle ages. HughSheehy (still no tildes)

Oops, that was William Camden's Britannia (1607)[2]. Do you have a reason to doubt the article statement that the first use of British Isles was 1621, or are you looking for something in Latin?EricR 01:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From my POV it's not hugely important if it's in Latin or English (or old english). It's just that 1500 years is a BIG gap in the use of the term, and this can support the view that the modern term is a political resurrection of a classical term. I'd be a little surprised if 1621 is really the first reference in English, given the correspondence between Mercator and his English and Scottish map sources in the 1500's. Meantime, apart from more clarification on Diodorus, references in any language to "The British Isles" that aren't copies of Pliny or Ptolemy in the period AD 100 to AD 1600 would be great to find. I've been looking, haven't found any. Hughsheehy 12:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth as Astraea, Frances A. Yates (Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, Vol. 10, 1947) quotes John Dee as using the term Brytish Iles. It was Dee who also invented the term British Empire - as a Welshman himself, and also to flatter the Welsh-descended Tudor monarchy, he preferred using the term "British" to "English". TharkunColl 13:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Any before that? I've been looking mostly on maps, but again, little luck. Hughsheehy 16:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found any yet, but it wouldn't surprise me if Dee was the one who introduced the phrase in its English form. TharkunColl 16:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Again, thanks. I'm not so concerned if it's English or Latin (or German or Italian), but I'm still short on references to British Isles between the Romans and 1550 or so. Hughsheehy 17:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After receiving the submission of the kings of Scotland, Strathclyde, and Dublin, etc. in 937 Athelstan, King of England, had himself described as: ÆtfelstaHus rex et rector totius hujus Britanniae insulae. [3] TharkunColl 19:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the information to hand, and it's Latin references to Britain rather than British Isles, but The Identity of the Scottish Nation by Ferguson shows histories from around that period using terms like Britonem to claim ancient provenance – also coining the descent from Brutus legend. If anyone finds resources showing development of the various terms around that era, the British Isles (terminology)#Medieval period needs to cover this. ..dave souza, talk 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a very large number of references to "Britain" from the early medieval period or even earlier. If we're looking for the first native reference (as opposed to the myriad Greek or Roman sources), then the earliest may well be the coins of Carausius. Then there is Gildas, followed by any number of references. The term "Britain" was even used by many of the Anglo-Saxon kings of England, scotching the modern myth that the term was not used by the early English. What we're looking for, however, is medieval references to "British Isles" (in any language), rather than just "Britain". TharkunColl 09:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"dab" header

This article has had various bits of text stuck up at the top of the article, before the lead, where you'd only ever normally to find a dab-header. Leaving aside the discussion about any controversy, and the scale of, this should be in the lead - not stuck right at the top of the article. Thanks/wangi 22:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; banners are suitable for reference to another article and not for highlighting a particular POV about the name of the article, or for providing links to a section on the same article. The banner started with a link to British Isles (terminology) and that's suitable use of a banner, but was converted to give another shot at highlighting a particular POV. ... dave souza, talk 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Remark, but the article now is POV. You have taken balance of pov from the article. The term is a British term, and it's just pushing the British POV. 86.42.132.84 02:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. josh (talk) 00:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It's going to lead to revert wars. Maybe that's what you lot want. 86.42.132.84 01:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's new about revert wars on this page. The banner does nothing to stop that. Please stop unilaterally enforcing this unwarrented header. josh (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of this talk page is that the banner is there to quell revert-wars. The term is controversial to say the least. It's objected to by Welsh, Scottish and Irish too, and the English are mostly ambivalent. The controversy is there, so why deny it? 86.42.132.84 01:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not the point of disambiguation headers. To have someones (no matter how many ones there are) opinion shoved in the readers face like that is POV pushing of the worse kind. Revert wars are quelled using comments and talk page headers, not by mangling the article. You seem to be the only one reinstating it, which you have done well over 3 times today. If you do it again I'll have to report you for the 3 revert rule. josh (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, I made my stand. Not too worried about 3 revert rule, thanks for the warning in any case. A very British coup!! Did you consult with any Irish editors about the wording? Or was it only British editors consulted? Seems the Irish editors don't matter. 86.42.132.84 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No-one was consulted. Anyone is free to come here with their opinion. I don't see how this is a British-Irish argument. The objections were about article style. josh (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Original research

I've removed the "Use outside Great Britain and Ireland" section as it's clearly original research: it makes no effort to cite a source making the claim, but only has links to two non-notable websites, both of which can be described as insensitive but little more. This is obviously a personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold .. dave souza, talk 23:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I support removal of that section, although (like on the BI(t) page) I wonder how actual usage should be best represented - since "British Isles" is often used in a way that just covers the UK. hughsheehy 10:31 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

I think what is at issue here is the literal meaing of British Isles - meaning the islands owned by Britian - which is disliked in Ireland. After 700 years+ of invasion, irish people are trying to distance themselves from statements that would suggest they are still under british control. This is fact, not opinion. So i would say either mention this in the article or rename it "West Europeon Isles" or something geographicly correct like that. --212.2.165.62 21:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

If the banner must be removed by the British Editors then the leading paragraphs must be reworked to reflect the fact that most people in Ireland do not class themselves in the British isles. British isles is/was political term, and probably still is. 86.42.132.84 23:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. NOBODY disputes the presence of Ireland in the British Isles - what is disputed by some is the naming of the isles as "British Isles". siarach 08:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the government of Ireland doesn't even respect or recognise the term "British Isles"...this should be smack bang in the introduction...the term is officially disputed...and for the Irish it doesn't include them. The Republic of Ireland shouldn't even be included in any of the maps showing the British Isles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 22 November 2006

But the term is used in Ireland, even by members of the Irish parliament and government. TharkunColl 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Look here son, the term is not recognised by THE IRISH GOVERNMENT, it has been removed from all school atlases for the forthcoming year and the IRISH EMBASSY in LONDON is monitoring abuse of the term BRITISH ISLES when it includes IRELAND. can I make it any clearer for you there??—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 22 November 2006

And yet people in Ireland use it. What on earth could be going on here? TharkunColl 08:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The odd person might use it but it is not uused and will no longer be used in government buildings as stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern who is democratically elected and speaks on behalf of the Irish State and its people..enough said.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Billthekid77 (talk • contribs) 08:36, 22 November 2006

Governments cannot legislate for language. Enough said. TharkunColl 08:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they can and do. The govts of France, Netherlands, Germany (I think) all do it.hughsheehy, 10:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

With limited success – Parlez vous Franglais? ;) ...dave souza, talk 10:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Kinda like drugs policy then...or driving laws!hughsheehy, 11:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is being removed from atlases from next year, and it is only one brand of atlas I hasten to add, then that means it is currently in Irish printed and produced atlases thereby it is indeed used. Do a search through the senate archives and you'll see that many members of the Irish government use the term in purely geographic terms. Ben W Bell talk 08:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Billthekid77, SIGN YOUR POSTS! The "controversy" is so widespread that an Irish schoolbook publisher didn't notice anything wrong with atlases using the term, and when A parent objected, the best evidence the news reporters could find of a controversy was - this article on Wikipedia! .. dave souza, talk 08:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And when the parent in question brought it to the attention of the Minister for Education, Mary Hanafin, TD and member of Fianna Fáil: the Republican Party, her reaction was "Take it up with the publishers - the Department (and, by implication, Government) don't care..." Bastun 09:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe the publisher's reaction was "hey, they're right, that shouldn't be in there!"...or maybe it was a Tuesday, or maybe it was his/her birthday. Please lets stick to facts......hughsheehy, 09:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Remark, there are many other atlases inside and outside Ireland that do not use the term, it's a non-argument. 86.42.132.84 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The Minister's reaction (i.e., take it up with the publishers, it's not a matter for the Dept. of Education) was covered in the media at the time. Bastun 10:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE re-insert the header/banner before we have a revert war?

The term "British Isles" IS a widely used term with a reasonably well understood definition, the archipelago (group of islands) IS a geographical and geological reality (except fot the Channel Islands), and the term "British Isles" IS offensive to many (or some, or whatever proportion) people in Ireland. That header had been stable and accurately reflected all the above facts.

If people want a page on the "Anglo Celtic Isles" (a term practically nobody actually uses) then let them write such a page. If anyone ever goes looking for information on that term they'll find it. Meantime, this page can talk about the term "British Isles", its climate, geography etc. and the term's origins and whether or not it is a political term can be addressed calmly in the text and with reference to original source material and not POV. Alternative terms can be mentioned in the section "Alternative terms", where they are now. Meantime - a couple of ettiquette points.

1. AFAIK an Irish Minister cannot speak on behalf of the Irish state or the Irish people any more than a UK Minister or one from Bhutan. The right to speak on behalf of the people is a privelige reserved for the head of state. The Irish President can speak on behalf of the people. A Minister can speak on behalf of the government. I believe it's the same principle in the UK and many other states.

2. Not only is the controversy real, but the Irish Embassy in London actually went so far as to say "We would discourage its useage.” ([4])

If a government of a sovereign state has gone so far to say that they do not use, nor recognise, nor encourage the use of a term, that is important. Look at how Wikipedia treats the words Burma, Madras, Bombay, etc. Those are old names of states or cities and they just redirect to the new name. "British Isles" is a shared term without official standing and with disputed meaning or usage and an article must reflect the facts in a reasonable way. Burying the fact that the government (and some/many) of the people of one of the two sovereign states covered by the area of the "British Isles" object to the term way down deep in the text is unreasonable and denies externally verifiable reality. The controversy (which is easy to find on wikipedia but not the only place it exists) needs to be front dead centre and then the rest of the page can be dealt with calmly and without having to put disclaimers and modifiers all over the place. Some people might not like the term and others might not like the fact that it's controversial but the term and the controversy both exist.hughsheehy, 09:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Banner re-inserted. Bastun 10:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree that the term and dislike of the term exist, but as pointed out by wangi] in #"dab" header above this is not what banners are for: the argument should be neutrally noted in the lead, which it is. The question is one of position in the lead: should this question be elevated in importance purely for fear of edit warring? The Embassy has said "We would discourage its useage”, and the ministerial statement said that the embassy monitored its usage, but there's no evidence that they actually DO discourage its usage which remains common. The CAIN report provides good evidence that the term is politically charged in Northern Ireland, and while only a minority seem to get really worked up about it in the Republic, its use appears to be generally avoided. All of which should be noted in the article. However, as was discussed long ago, this leaves British Isles as the only generally known term for the group of islands. By the way, I think it was the Irish Times that used Wikipedia as the main evidence for "controversy" - it was discussed here at the time. As was done earlier, I'll move the "banner" into an early place in the lead.. dave souza, talk 10:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia cited as evidence appears here: Áine Kerr,"Folens to wipe 'British Isles' off the map in new atlas", Irish Times, 2 October 2006 – "The introduction of the Folens atlas follows a recent entry on the online encyclopaedia Wikipedia on the term "British Isles" which stated that the phrase could be 'confusing and objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland'.

The term has in the past been used in a purely geographical sense, to make clear Ireland's proximity to Britain." as footnoted in this article. :) ... dave souza, talk 09:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah the banner. BTW, hughs' point about ministers not speaking for the state is a very valid one, one I've tried to make before, but one he makes in a much more eloquent way than I ever did. Similarly his point two is important.

The banner started life as a link to British Isles terminology and was pretty much the same as the one at England, United Kingdom etc etc (in fact I even created a template. It was then changed at some point - in August maybe - to describe the controversy and link to the terminology here. I must admit I was always a little uncomfortable with it. I think dave's change is a good one. --Robdurbar 11:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That stupid banner has gone; GOOD! I've never seen anything so ridiculous in my life. It's blantant POV pushing of the worst kind. Let's make sure it doesn't re-appear. And while we are at it, perhaps now is the time to tone down all this boloney about the so-called controversy. I'm thinking of moving the offending section out to a separate article, while leaving a brief reference to it - any views on this suggestion? Arcturus 18:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just don't see the need to remove it, or to move it elsewhere. --Robdurbar 19:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the banner. The controversy can and is adequately dealt with in the article. Gsd2000 03:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The controversy is not dealt with enough in the article, given the fact that the Republic of Ireland doesn't consider itself to be part of the British Isles. But it's getting better. Billthekid77

The Republic of Ireland does consider itself to be part of the territory covered by the term "British Isles", that's why it objects to the term! Demiurge 09:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And before we have the poor old banner being accused of being POV again (by Arcturus and others) - let's remember what it said. "The term "British Isles" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people, particularly in Ireland [1]. See the Terminology section below for details of the controversy. "

So, first, is the term confusing? It certainly is, and that is externally verifiable because it is used in confused and varied ways. It seems that most of the terms related to Great Britain and Ireland are confusing or confused in some way other.

Second, is it objectionable to some people in Ireland? Again, that is fact and again externally verifiable.

To me, it is blatant POV to say that people SHOULD NOT be offended and to use that POV to drive the edit. The FACT is that people are. Wikipedia is about facts, not POV.

Next question...are these facts relevant enough to merit top dead centre placement? I refer to my points above. I believe so. Hughsheehy 09:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that no opinion poll has ever been conducted in the Republic of Ireland to find out what proportion of its population don't like the term. We therefore have to fall back on anecdotal evidence, and I really don't think it's unreasonable to state that such evidence as there is strongly seems to indicate that most people in Ireland really don't care. The term is used, without causing comment, in the Irish parliament, in official government reports, and by government ministers. There are undoubtedly people in Ireland who don't like the term, but for all we know they might be such a small group that every single one of them has appeared here on Wikipedia editing this article. Whilst I'm not seriously suggesting that this is actually the case, it highlights the fact that a vocal minority cannot and should not speak on behalf of an entire country. But even if the entire population of the Republic of Ireland refused to use the term (which isn't the case), then they would still only constitute one in fifteen of the entire population of the British Isles. This is a minority that is large enough to have its views mentioned, but small enough that those views should not overwhelm the entire article. TharkunColl 09:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Has a survey ever been conducted in the UK - or anywhere else? (I'm aware of at least two informal surveys in Ireland) Since there are no surveys, maybe only a few dictionary editors around the world ever use the term. Maybe no-one other than a vocal minority of people come onto Wikipedia and insist that the term is widely used.......let's not be silly. Hughsheehy 11:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW - Tharkun's view on how democracy should within the population of the British Isles has probably just validated the views of the most radical Irish Nationalists. Scary. Hughsheehy 11:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

My view on the issue was always that a banner such as those found at England, United Kingdom, Great Britain etc. was appropriate - in fact there's even a template that I created (its no longer used on any article, mind) for this purpose [5]. When this was changed to a British Isles specific banner I was uncomfortable basicially because banners aren't used (to my knoweldge) anywhere else on Wikipedia in that way; that said I do see the benefits of it.

I would support the reintroduction of the disambiguation-style link that goes to the terminology article which describes the terms used in a clear and concise way. Or leaving it as it is. Or with the banner back up as it was. But I'd prefer what I said first. --Robdurbar 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is a term far, far, far, far, far more offensive to many more people than "the British Isles", use of which (by those who have no respect for their fellow man) can (rightly) lose one one's job or land one in prison, yet it doesn't have banners plastered over it to tiptoe around the sensitivities of a handful of editors. It calmly and factually states the offensiveness in an encyclopaedic tone within the contents of the article. No banner needed. Also, some editors need to consider that Wikipedia reports on things as they are, not how they should be or how they want them to be. The fact of the matter is that if this article devotes too much space to the controversy then it becomes a political POV-pushing essay. Why can't our Irish friends be as mature about this as our French ones when discussing the English Channel? [[6]]. Gsd2000 14:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't know France was in the English Channel, and please do not make comparisons, because you leave those comparisons open to a complete parody, which could be most offensive. 86.42.145.54 16:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously France isn't "in" the English Channel, you idiot, but they don't call it the "English" Channel. They call it La Manche, but noone has seen fit to put a banner at the top of the French article saying that the term English is offensive to them. And if you can't understand the analogies I make, you are even more of a cretin than your post leads me to believe. Gsd2000 16:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Cannot see how France could be offended when they clearly are not in the English Channel. I understand too well. Enough! BTW, I see they have a pad-lock on that one too. 86.42.145.54 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000 — please stop making personal attacks. If people seem not to understand your analogies, then perhaps you need to explain them differently? Bazza 17:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

One has to assume a certain level of intelligence and sense of the part of other editors, for otherwise we shall all have to explain things to each other like we are children. And I found it extremely impolite of 86.42.145.54 to instruct me not to make comparisons in what was a constructive post: (s)he got what was coming to him(her). Gsd2000 17:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, I was only trying to stem a debate to which was the most offensive word, the b-word, or the n-word. To me, the b-word is actually more offensive. It must be remembered that b's were most offensive during colonial times, and taking life, especially of the downtrodden was second nature. Please stop your crying and do some retribution. 86.42.145.54 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then apologies from me too. However, the point is not the relative offensiveness of the words - the offensiveness of one word is a relative thing anyway for different people. It's that other words or names which some people find offensive do not have to have a banner at the top, essentially making an excuse for the existence of the article. Gsd2000 17:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another analogy: Indian Subcontinent. I would like to invite all the "anti-British Isles" editors to take a look at that and notice the complete lack of any offense caused by the fact that Pakistan and Bangladesh are no longer part of the Indian state - and indeed, in the case of the former at least, are on the brink of war with it. This is presumably because the editors of that article are sensible enough to be able to tell the difference between a political and a geographical term. TharkunColl 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And another: Sea of Japan. And another Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Greece. Gsd2000 17:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Gosh! Are they on the brink of war? OMG! Britain and Ireland haven't gone that far yet over WP!! 86.42.145.54

Yes indeed, throughout history relations between Britain and Ireland have never been anything but peaceful. TharkunColl 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hum, what are you on? I'd like to get some of that. Hum! 86.42.147.234 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Coast

You've got to laugh! I've just picked up this week's copy of TV Quick (for those of you who don't know, it a UK TV listings publication) and at 8:00pm tonight on BBC2 we have the latest installment of an excellent programme called Coast. Here's the blurb from TV Quick "Dublin to Derry - the team carry on their journey around the UK's shoreline, visiting a unique horse race by the sea and an Irish salt mine". Comments? Arcturus 18:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been shown yet, I think it might be unfair to judge it. Perhaps in order to cover the entire coast of Northern Ireland, they had to get a ferry to Dublin or something. TharkunColl 18:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I know the horse race they're talking about, see Laytown. Demiurge 18:36, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

They've made another series of Coast? And its been on with no-one telling me? I hate you all --Robdurbar 18:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be watching for the first time, and will be writing my review a little later! 86.42.147.234 19:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Thanks for the hint - just changed channel to find Dublin being described as scarcely Irish at all in its history, founded by invaders as a viking Blackpool, Guinness founded by an Anglo-Norman family and a statue of Britannia atop a building – Irish sounding guy says "secretly, Dublin is still a little bit British.. Dublin was the second city of the Empire", contested by the presenter who reckons that was Glasgow, and describes Dublin now as second to no-one. Well, the programme is claimed to be about the British Isles. ... dave souza, talk 20:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC) de-greengrocer's apostrophe .. dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Remark, Well, Anglo is German, and Norman is French, so what has that got to do with the Priteni. Your argument has now fallen flat on its stomach. And don't the Scottish Gaels owe everything to the Irish Gaels, for the Scoti were the Irish and they invaded Caledonia. Everything you argued is now gone tits up. LOL. 86.42.147.234 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh?? Just a neutral report about the words used in a programme, details here and you'll probably be able to watch it online shortly. .. dave souza, talk 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I recall that the promotional trailers for the programme on BBCtv were highlighting that the new series includes the entire British Isles. There is no claim that the RoI is British (although some of Ireland is, although the programmes seem to be omitting any overt references to nations/countries anyway) — but it is the label to use to ensure that most people in the UK (at least) will know that the whole set of islands is being talked about; any other label would be either unclear or unwieldy. Should RTE have produced the new series and needed to promote the inclusion of all islands in the group, how would that have been worded? Bazza 09:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Britain and Ireland of course, preserving the alphabetical order. 86.42.147.234 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The border is mentioned in the context of the (Scottish) presenter Neil Oliver saying something like "across the lough is Northern Ireland, and I'm standing in the South", and showing cars queuing for cheap petrol with the proprietor betting Oliver that he won't be able to find the border: the first real evidence he's in NI is a road sign in miles.. Later Oliver refers to Londonderry: I note that the web page says Derry. Ah, these insensitive Scots... dave souza, talk 11:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

British Isles is really mainly a British thing. We in Ireland don't use the term. And there are many atlases and internet maps that don't use the term either. It's not universally used, and probably the article does reflect that fact to a degree. It's not really a dispute, it's just more about reality. 86.42.147.234 14:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A concise reply which I understand, thank you. I've been following the voluminous circular discussions on this page on and off for a while, but the question I asked above and which I've asked before has never been answered: what label (other than British Isles which you say is not used) do you if you want to talk about all the islands together? It might be that nobody in Ireland ever wants to do this, but I'd be surprised if it never came up. (I'm not after any official names which our respective politicians feel oblige to tiptoe around, just normal folks like you :-) .) Bazza 15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We in Ireland don't use the term. We don't? What about the examples used in this very article? From the Dáil, to school atlases (bar one, from the next print run sometime next year) to the thousands of examples you can find by googling "British Isles" on google.ie and restricting the results to Irish sites. Sure, many don't use it... but stating that it isn't used is flying in the face of reason. Bastun 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Britain and Ireland is the term usually used in Ireland. Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them. Why not use Wales when we allude to Wales, or Scotland when we allude to Scotland, and the same for England and Ireland. Britain in the above context pertains to all things in the realm of Britain, including it's islands. And the same for Ireland. British Isles is just a term invented about 400 years ago. What did we call them before then? It's not really a problem as such. It's more about the real world as I mentioned earlier. 86.42.147.234 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In the real world, Irish people do indeed use the term - including government ministers and members of parliament. And the term is at least 2000 years older than your suggestion. TharkunColl 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them. Exsqueeze me?! Irish people do indeed use the term. You do not speak for everyone. Please do not post such obvious PoV nonsense in my name. Bastun 16:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that Irish people usually use the term Britain and Ireland. I never denied that that the term British Isles is used in Ireland. It is used by a small minority of people. Irish people use terms like Wales, Scotland, England, Ireland. 86.42.147.234 16:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, English, Scottish, and Welsh people use terms like England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as well - but not when they are referring to all four of them together as a geographical unit. And the same is no doubt true of the Irish as well. TharkunColl 16:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a geographical unit, England is closer to France than it is to Ireland. That's fine that the term British Isles is used in Britain, and that's the real world. But the term is seldom used in Ireland, and that's the real world too. 86.42.147.234 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"I said that Irish people usually use the term Britain and Ireland." No, 86.42.147.234 (er, why don't you register a proper username?) - what you said was "Irish people do not feel the need to use British Isles because the term is pretty meaningless to them." and "We in Ireland don't use the term." The fact is that some (probably a minority) Irish people do - and some don't. Bastun 17:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad we agree. 86.42.147.234 17:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Scottish independence

What will happen if and when Scotland becomes independent? Will the phrase Great Britain and Ireland have to be amended? Will the Scots try to repudiade geography? Or are they a bit more sensible than that? TharkunColl 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely that's proper to the Scottish independence talk page rather than here. Bastun 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It was meant as an analogy. TharkunColl 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This page is already too long. See note at the top. Mind you, I should stop adding to it's length myself by feeding the anon trolls like 86.x.x.x above... ;-) Bastun 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bastun, I don't know who you are either. 86.42.147.234 17:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a registered user with an edit history - not an anonymous IP, subject to change. Bastun 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should register an account, thanks! 86.42.147.234 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, very funny. Seen WP:U? Bastun 17:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Scotland is part of Britain. Ireland isn't. 86.42.147.234 17:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And that's the whole point. Ireland is part of the British Isles but you are disputing this. I imagine there will also be a tiny but vocal minority of Scots who will try and say that Britain is a politically loaded term and should be replaced with something "neutral". TharkunColl 18:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Remark; No, I am not disputing anything. It all depends on your perspective. I, and millions of people all over the world would never use the term. To me the term is meaningless. It did mean something pre 1922 when it was a political term. And if Scotland ever took independence as a nation, which would be wonderful, it would almost certainly refer to itself as Scotland and Scotland only. 86.42.147.234 21:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Tharkuncoll and others - don´t you realise that even in the event of Scotland leaving the UK (which is not entirely implausible) it´s not geography that would be repudiated, just the name. Names are "repudiated" all the time. Batavia, Bombay, Burma, Rhodesia, Dingle, etc.,etc.,etc. (I wish people would read the page and the archives...right now I am reminded of a song from the past..."you spin me right round baby right round like a record baby right round round round.) Hughsheehy (still on a keyboard with no tildes)

Meantime, on the British Isles page, we could note the issue and move on to describe the geography, climate, flora and fauna of the various islands and (heaven help me) maybe even mention history. We could cover alternative terms in the section on alternative terms and if anyone wants to write a page on "Britain and Ireland" or the "Anglo-Celtic Isles" they can do so. I believe pages for some of the alternative terms are long in place. hughsheehy (sorry, still no tildes)

Hugh, in the editing page try highlighting the tildes next to "Sign your name:" two lines down from the save / preview / changes buttons, copy and paste. As for the hypothetical question, if the SNP gain power at the parliament elections, if they get a referendum, if it goes their way, if they gain separation, and if they're then in power, quite likely even thinking British will be made a thought crime after the burning of atlases following the Scottish Parliament Building fire... hypothetically.. bit off topic, though. Hugh, you're absolutely right, up to the history: didn't you notice British Isles#History? ..dave souza, talk 20:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes--I shoulda thought of that. Silly me.

Meantime, there is indeed a history section (I did know that) ....I just wish people would concentrate on IMPROVING THE EDIT rather than having pointless discussions where no-one is paying any attention to anything anyone else is saying anyway. As I (and others) have said, if there´s a fight about the name, let´s mention it top dead centre then move on. If there is a new name someday, fine. If not, the notice on the dispute can stay. If the name becomes uncontroversial (again) then the notice can go. Meantime, if someone believes the name is political or not - or that only wild eyed Irish Nationalists don´t like it - or that only Tory Imperialists still use the name, provide evidence or calm down. Saying something 1000 times doesn´t make something true and certainly won´t make doubters believe. Hughsheehy 21:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you ask so nicely: hope all are content with some recent edits. .. dave souza, talk 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No, not happy with those edits. You have removed some key points. In any case why should a Scottish editor be editing that particular section on Ireland. Is it some form of conceited arrogance? You fail to understand the Irish perspective in the talk pages, so how can you edit? 86.42.147.234 22:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

He can edit - just like you can - because he's a Wikipedian. No article "belongs" to any one nationality. As regards the "Irish perspective on the talk pages" - stop assuming you speak for all Irish people - you don't. Bastun 00:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh what arrogance, so you are the real one, the one that speaks for all people in Ireland. Sorry Mrs. President, your excellency. I should have known. 86.42.147.234 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Google hits

The section detailing Google hits for "Britain and Ireland" as against "British Isles" is useless, meaningless rubbish - should we take it out? The term "Britain and Ireland" will cover many instances of use not intended as a replacement for "British Isles", e.g. English is spoken in Britain and Ireland. The reference to the BBC site using the term "British Isles and Ireland" is also worthless. All it demonstrates is ignorance on the part of the writer. Arcturus 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see that we´re all still polite to each other. Ignorant how? Hughsheehy 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the ignorance of the BBC writer, not a Wikipedia editor. His ignorance relates to basic geography. Arcturus 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've said several times about my attempts to edit this page, the correctness of someone's useage of the term is not mine to judge, only the fact that they do use it in a certain way. I believe that dictionaries base definition on usage, so it is possible that the OED will - in 20 years - be using the BBC definition and not the current definition. Hughsheehy 11:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed the Google stuff for the reasons you've stated (which were also stated in previous discussion here). Changed the 'most commonly used alternative' to Britain and Ireland from Great Britain and Ireland in that section, too. Bastun 00:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I put that section in, and google may not be very good evidence, but it is evidence. What is the justification for taking it out and replacing it with supposition? Hughsheehy 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'd rather have NOTHING than have google evidence. Google can be used in discussions for a talk page as circusmatancial evidence but to ref it in an article... I think we have a codified policy on it somewhere... --Robdurbar 00:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The google stuff looks like original research, to me at least. Demiurge 00:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One problem with the google his is that it will reutrn pages with the sentence (as an example): "Members of the EU include France, Lativa, Estonia, Italy... Britain and Ireland". This term is not always used as a synonoym for 'British Isles'" Equally, though, Hugh is correct in pointing out that the current sentence is now unsourced. Robdurbar 00:28, 25 November 2006

(UTC)

The justification for taking it out is, as stated, covered by Arcturus and already discussed in the talk pages, Hugh. It may mean looking back through a few pages, but it's there. Bastun 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I violated the Original Research rule. Was not trying to do so - just to remove the continuous problem on this page of "My opinion is righter than yours". Also, I tried to put in "Probably" on all the references. If we can at least have facts - even vague ones - on usage then we might get somewhere with this. Otherwise we got nothing. Hughsheehy 00:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Google Hits

Rank	Territory	Google Hits
1	England	310,000,000
2	Ireland	233,000,000
3	Scotland	116,000,000
4	Wales	111,000,000
5	"British Isles"	1,920,000
6	"Britain and Ireland"	1,230,000

86.42.147.234 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, google will also pull up pages with "Great Britain and Ireland, formerly known as the British Isles".. Ah well. Meantime, reliable published sources (newspapers in Ireland) provide data to support that the term is offensive, so can we stop going round on that one? Also, it now becomes REALLY difficult to assert that the term British Isles is actually more common in use than the other terms, which are demonstrably (even if I haven´t got a non-google source) in common use...just as it´s easy to show that British Isles is often used to mean things other than the current definition. So now what? Hughsheehy 00:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing to bear in mind there, though, is that the journalist in question is Kevin Myers. He doesn't write news articles, he writes deliberately provocative opinion pieces. Wikipedia is supposed to be NPOV. Bastun 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Britain and Ireland" is not a noun, and has no more independent existence than phrases such as "Brazil and Paraguay" or "Australia and Zimbabwe". The google search is meaningless. TharkunColl 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry if the Google search offends you and that you find it objectionable, but that the reality! 86.42.147.234 00:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The 'reality' is that a google search like this is meaningless, 86, as has been admirably and previously demonstrated in the archives of this talk page. Bastun 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, google searches can be useful to provide back up/circumstancial evidence. And look: we even have a policy! --Robdurbar 10:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hurrah, we have a policy, now we don't have to think! That's the spirit of wikipedia. --Khendon 10:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was simply pointing out that this is a problem that has come up before and that this is the guideline/policy that reflects the most sensible way to go forward. --Robdurbar 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So since it appears that Google CAN be use, may we put the alternative terms and their approximate frequency back in - even with only google as the (imperfect) source? Bastun - will you do that or will I? We can add whatever words are appropriate to indicate that the google frequency is only indicative, perhaps in a footnote. It seems to be more helpful than continued discussions on "I know better than you do". As for Kevin Myers, he's certainly controversial but it's interesting to point out that he's also (please correct me if I'm wrong) English by birth, which does tweak the continued bilateralism on this page.. In any case, I suppose that a factual phrase would be "Several major Irish newspapers have expressed the view that the term is often considered offensive in Ireland". Hughsheehy 11:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

(Remove indent) Google can certainly be used, as pointed out by Rob - policy - in certain circumstances. And from that page: "See Further judgment: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor." If the Google results were only only going to be slightly off, fair enough. But that clearly won't be the case. A search for "British Isles" returns x. A search for "Britain and Ireland", for example, will return y. But the pages containing y will include many different contexts where the term is clearly not being used as a replacement or alternative to "British Isles": "The EU consists of France, Germany... Britain and Ireland." "There were storms over Northern France, Britain and Ireland." "The respective ministers from Briatin and Ireland met to discuss the St. Andrews Agreement." And so on. The y result will therefore contain a vast number of false results. Putting it into an encyclopedia (even with a footnote saying basically "This result is wrong") is pointless. Again, this has already been debated on these talk pages. Certainly the sentence on "Several major Irish newspapers..." can be included - if you can cite sources. Bastun 13:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm not sure how our points didn't edit conflict, cos that wasn't there when I started editing. Anyway, what Bastun said. --Robdurbar 13:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Except that I used google on "Great Britain and Ireland", which will reduce the number of false positives significantly since the term "Great Britain" is more common in formal use. In addition, the search for "Britain and Ireland" will include all the hits for "Great Britain and Ireland" but not vice versa. Next, the only aim is to get an approximate indication of popularity in usage so the result would be inaccurate, but not wrong. (there is a big difference) Then, before Arcturus and Tharkuncoll say it again, the aim is to look at usage of alternatives, NOT to state that one or the other is correct.

If this is not possible then I come back to my question on how - besides listing lots of places that use British Isles or Great Britain and Ireland or any of the other alternatives - anyone proposes to demonstrate that the term British Isles IS currently the most commonly used term as opposed to just an obscure or obsolete term (which I´m not suggesting it is, since I ran the google search on that too). Floccinaucinihilipilification has a dictionary definition too, but I challenge you to find it in common use. Hughsheehy 02:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be verbose, but a follow on point. The section I added on the alternative terms seems to me to be completely in line with the policy on google use in the section on checking idiomatic usage. Why should it not be included? I appreciate and share the concern on using google hits as a deterministic input, but as an indicator it is allowed and approved by Wikipedia policy. And sorry, but I don´t regard the fact that this issue has been discussed on this talk page as being a very serious objection if google use (in that way) is allowed. Hughsheehy 02:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember that WP:GOOGLE is a guideline and WP:NOR is a policy. In my view, it's OK to use Google result counts in an informal talk page discussion in an attempt to reach consensus, but deciding on your own search terms and including your search results in the main article is definitely WP:NOR. Demiurge 10:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> Again, having read all the policies and guidelines, I disagree. The NOR policy states that something is NOR if;

   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The only possible count would be number 5. First, I don´t believe that I was trying to introduce an "argument", and in any case then the only question is then whether google hits are a "reputable source". All I was trying to do is provide some justification for a list of alternative terms, and Google´s guideline seems to apply to that and approve that kind of use.

Idiomatic usage. The English language often has multiple terms for a single concept, particularly given regional dialects. A series of searches for different forms of a name reveals some approximation of their relative popularity. For a quick comparison of relative usage try googlefight, e.g. comparing deoxyribose nucleic acid and deoxyribonucleic acid. Note that there are cases where this googletest can be overruled, such as when an international standard has been set, as in the case of aluminium.

So, again, the paragraph I entered (and which has since been replaced with entirely unsupported text) was meant to reorder the alternative terms so that their listing reflected their frequency of usage. That shouldn´t be a difficult subject and I think the paragraph met that need, and meantime it should not be difficult to agree that the listing/ranking was approx right. I´m open to suggestions on how to do it, but am not happy with the previous or current situation where there is text with NO SOURCE AT ALL. Hughsheehy 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced by the OR argument, but onnly really because I really don't understand that policy. I don't like it cos its bad style and because I think there's a big difference between using google to present arguments here, and quoting it in the article.

I do agree that a source would be preferable here but I think there could be a better way of doing this.Robdurbar 22:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd see more of a conflict with Point 6 rather than Point 5, to be honest: "It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;". And there is still no reliable way of eliminating the false positives from any result. I disagree too that 'Great Britain' is used more often in a formal context than just 'Britain'. The only common uses of it that I'm really aware of are in the full phrase 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland' - and in sports, where for some reason the UK uses the term 'Great Britain' or 'GB' rather than 'United Kingdom' or UK. Ultimately, though, this an article on the British Isles. I really don't see what the problem is in simply including an 'Alternative Terms' section as it exists now, listing the alternative terms and giving examples of their usage, rather than trying to 'prove' that one term is more popular than another. Bastun 23:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how point 6 would apply, since I'm not sure what particular case I favour...or could be said to favour in that section, and in any case the debate on google as a "reputable source" would apply. Even if I had some funny POV I wanted in that section, I can't fake results on google. As for "Proving" that one alternative is more popular than another, I don't think it should be - or was - said like that. It should - and I think/hope - was used to indicate which alternatives were common and which ones were not. That does imply an indication of common-ness, but we shouldn't be too demanding on any source for quantification of idiomatic usage.

Remember, the list of alternatives used to start withsomething like IONA (apparently beloved of the BNP) and the "Anglo-Celtic Isles", neither of which are actually common in use, and neglected "Great Britain and Ireland", "Britain and Ireland" and had "The British Isles and Ireland" right at the bottom of the list. That was - IMHO - a bad order for the edit. Then, if I was to change the order, I felt I had to have evidence before doing so, so I looked for evidence and found it. Now, should we ignore the evidence and have a bad edit, or what? Hughsheehy 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I don't doubt that the phrase "(Great) Britain and Ireland" is enormously more common than such contrived and fundamentally inaccurate terms as "IONA" and "Anglo-Celtic Isles", the Google search is flawed because we are not comparing like with like. Consider such sentences as the following, for example: "The Isle of Man lies between (Great) Britain and Ireland", "The Irish Sea separates (Great) Britain and Ireland", or even "The two largest islands in the British Isles are (Great) Britain and Ireland." In all these and similar cases, the term "(Great) Britain and Ireland" is not being used as a single, collective noun, but simply as two nouns that happen to fall together in a sentence, and therefore is not in any sense simply a substitute for "British Isles". TharkunColl 12:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Or what. :-P I don't think anyone could realistically dispute that 'Britain and Ireland', 'Great Britain and Ireland' or even 'British Isles and Ireland' are far more commonly used than 'IONA' or 'Anglo-Celtic Isles'. The current order is therefore fine, in my opinion. You're dead right that the previous order was a bad edit. If in the (unlikely) event of a non-troll challenging the current order, that would be the time to set up a Googlefight, I think - and the proper place for the debate - and any resulting stats - would be the Talk page. Yes, there is WP:V but really common sense can and should apply too. Some facts are just so obvious they don't need a citation. Bastun 12:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl's point certainly has some merit, and I'm sure there would be many others possibilities too (e.g. my example from several pages up). If we take first the internal order in the list of alternatives, can we use google to INDICATE the order of common-ness just within that list? Given the different rankings from google it hardly seems likely to be terribly controversial that (Great) Britain and Ireland is used as a collective alternative for The British Isles more often than the phrase IONA, and the appropriate words shouldn't be hard to find. Then, since there appears to be significant sensitivity about suggesting an indicative frequency of use in comparison with the phrase "British Isles" itself (i.e. outside the list of alternatives), at least partially because (Great) Britain and Ireland may often turn up as a series of words rather than a phrase, we can leave that debate for another day and another method of proving or disproving the hypothesis. Hughsheehy 13:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Bastun 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search for "british isles" comes up 1,990,000, from which in all fairness we must subtract 27,400 for the (absurd) phrase "british isles and ireland", leaving 1,962,600. "britain and ireland" comes up with 1,280,000, but in strict accuracy we must distinguish this from the phrase "great britain and ireland", which is after all different, which comes up with 954,000, leaving just 326,000. In surprise second place, therefore, is Great Britain and Ireland. It still suffers from all the problems concerned with collective nouns discussed above, but one thing that we can remove is all instances where it occurs as part of the historical term "united kingdom of great britain and ireland", which comes up as 115,000, leaving just 839,000. Therefore, British Isles is considerably more than twice as popular as its nearest rival (Great Britain and Ireland), even ignoring the unknown number of times that Great Britain, and Ireland, are used as two separate nouns. TharkunColl 17:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Thark has unsettled the symmetry of the article. A contentious article as such needs that certain symmetry, so I reverted his edits. MelForbes 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you actually read all my changes? Especially the first one, in the light of the information I presented above. TharkunColl 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yawn, I think both versions - competing against each other - have gone a little too far either way. Im gonna try a good old fanshioned synthesis. --Robdurbar 08:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Tharkun himself ahs tried something similar. It looks OK though I might tweak a little --Robdurbar 08:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done some original research on the Google search pages, and I have found that about 80% (if not more), of the pages containing the term British Isles are from websites that are in fact UK based. Should these hits be deducted from the overall Google hit-count. MelForbes 13:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A) Why on earth should they be deducted just because they're from "UK based" sites (whatever that means - does amazon.co.uk really count as a 'British' site?) B) How did you manage to visit nearly 2 million websites?! Bastun 14:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was just adding my 6p worth to the general discussion above, which appears to be in the same vein. I took 50 random sites as a sample for my original study. It appears, from my research, that the term BI is more a localised term that is mainly used in the UK. MelForbes 15:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

So what if it is? It is still far more than twice as popular as its next nearest rival, Great Britain and Ireland. And you gave yourself away by your suggestion above that I had unsettled the "symmetry" of the article - why should a tiny minority view, less than 1 in 15, be given "symmetrical" space in the article in the first place? TharkunColl 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about minorities. I believe that the majority do not use the term. You say, gave yourself away, well I don't know what you mean by that. Anyone who has read this talk page knows exactly my views on this topic. The article must reflect the the reality of the term, and how it is used, and where it is used etc. It's a no-brainer really. MelForbes 15:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why devote so much space in the article to the objections of a tiny minority? This gives an utterly false impression. TharkunColl 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> "Tiny" and "utterly" are unsupported modifiers....even by reference to google hits :-)) Meantime there may (or may not) be a minority. If it is a minority it may or may not be a tiny one. We'll probably get towards the facts of it by looking at usage. The space given to the fact that there is controversy may be excessive (or not). In any case, as I said before, to come with a 15:1 argument about the population of the UK vs the population of the Republic of Ireland is designed to validate the views of the most extreme nationalists and is (IMHO) unhelpful. Any time that "I'm bigger than you" is the only argument is likely to be unhelpful. This appears to be a situation where at least some appreciable fraction of a neighbouring country is saying "hey, we don't like that term". Perhaps a response of "I don't care about what you think, I prefer to refer to the authority of 2000 year old Greek guy" might not be such a sensitive response. It's been mentioned here several times and it's not a perfect analog, but "nigger" has a long classical history as a word and was initially only rejected by a (tiny) minority of the people it was applied to. Now, "British" and "nigger" are not equivalent, but the idea that respect for people's feeling is important is relevant in both cases. I know that British people don't like to be referred to as UKish (pronounced Yuk-ish), so even if it might be an accurate representation of the name of the state as converted into a nationality, it's probably not polite. I live in Spain(Catalunya), so let's not even start with that one! Hughsheehy 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A neighbouring country to whom? You are assuming that the term British Isles is in some way specific to Britain. All of the early uses of it in English intended to term to refer to, or be derived from, the Celtic inhabitants of the islands. In this sense the Irish are far more "British" than the English. I have never heard the term "Yukish" before but it really wouldn't bother me, no matter how offensive it was intended to be. As for the "I'm bigger than you" argument, it really refers to how common the term is in English. TharkunColl 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So did we decide to use google as some sort of source or not? --Robdurbar 11:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy for it to be used as a general indicator to the prevalence of particular alternative terms, as outlined by Hugh in his comment of the 27th. Bastun 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pretani never had a hold in Ireland, they made up no more than 3% of the population of the island 2000 years ago. The name could be one big is a misnomer, and that ref to Pretani in the main article may still exist because of the many moderate editors, myself included, who still try to make this article work. Thark, hope you are not incorrigible, please help with improving the article. MelForbes 01:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So was it the CSO who came up with the 3% figure? Or were the county councils out checking the electoral registers? Maybe the PDs had kicked them all out... Care to source that statement? Bastun 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Look Bastun, the section is convoluted. Is this what you want in the article. It's unreadable and incomprehensible. Is this the new standard! MelForbes 01:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives in Britain

I propose that we remove the "Perspectives in Ireland" section until such time as someone can be bothered to write a "Perspectives in Britain" section, which should be approximately 15 times longer to give fair weight to population. TharkunColl 00:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Not having one thing in the article is not a reason to remove an informative and interesting section. WP:SOFIXIT applies here, I think. --Robdurbar 00:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this whole article has been undermined by extremists. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. TharkunColl 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Tharkun but I really don't think immediate unialteral removal of a section that has been in place for months on end and is generally well sourced is appropriate. --Robdurbar 00:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Along the same logic, I'm going to keep blanking United Kingdom until the People's Republic of China article is expanded to be approximately 20 times longer than it. Demiurge 00:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this civil and avoid sarcasm. Perhaps you could detail exaclt what is wrong with the Ire perspectives bit, or how a useful British perspectives bit might go Robdurbar 00:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with the Irish perspectives bit is that it is given so much space. The RoI only accounts for 1 in 15 of the entire population of the British Isles, and not even the entire population of the RoI eschew the term. TharkunColl 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly an opportunity for you to write an additional section. Hughsheehy 00:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've begun such a section. Its much shorter, but can't really think what else there is to be said. Robdurbar 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks good. I can't think what more there is to say. Do we need a section on the international perspective - if there is such a perspective? Arcturus 11:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I did wonder about this, but I think the only thing we could talk about is confusion over what the term means... Robdurbar 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"As a general rule, the use of the term British Isles to refer to the archipalego is common and uncontroversial within Great Britain" - shouldn't that say "United Kingdom"? Gsd2000 12:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If it does, then we must change the title of the other section to "Perspectives in the Republic of Ireland", to make it clear that those who claim to speak on behalf of Ireland are not even speaking on behalf of all of Ireland, just part of it. TharkunColl 12:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the other section discusses Northern Ireland, which is why I stated 'Great Britain'. I think its the most logical way to split such a discussion. --Robdurbar 13:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob's right, the term is controversial in NI not least because there are two Irish perspectives about the use of the term – as described in the CAIN report. .. dave souza, talk 22:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Negative reflection of Wikipedia

This is obviously an out-of-date, and outdated, term. In the first place and most importantly, it is now technical incorrect.

In general, it is no-longer generally, commercially, or academically used, and is a politically sensitive term for many in Ireland and Northern Ireland, and to others in Scotland and Wales.

It is considered a highly offensive term by many in both the North and South of Ireland. Those who support the term are often doing so because they are politically extremely polarised, or just polarised in historic argument to a small percentage of the people who dislike the term, while the general population has no affiliation with the name, and arguably never has.

The fact that greater focus is not giving to the fact the term is out-of-date (‘old and not useful or correct’ - cambridge.org) amounts to another very negative blur on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be a dynamic factual international source, not one that has a place for relics of past British imperialism. The context of any ‘British Isles’ article should be historical. 86.42.173.232 21:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop creating multiple accounts with names based on IP addresses. See WP:U Bastun 22:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You sound a bit polarised, dear 86. What you're asking for is exactly what Wikipedia doesn't do: try to read and understand WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, just rippling the stilly waters! 86.42.173.232 22:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest everyone stops feeding this sockpuppet troll and ignores him until he goes away. WP:NOFEEDING Gsd2000 13:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perspectives in Ireland

Mel, some points: The mentions of James give historical perspective as to why there is a controversy at all. The term BI is not "highly" controversial in Ireland - for most people, it's not something they're bothered about. But lets not get into the debate about whether its "highly", "very", "somewhat" or "considered by some/many to be..." controversial and just leave it unqualified. 'Sovereignty' is an exception to the 'i before e' rule[7]- and I challenge you to find me any Irish citizen who actually believes "that the United Kingdom retains soveriegnty over the Republic." Bastun 01:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you Bastun, people in Ireland don't give 2 thoughts about the term. Still the relevant section is just the pits, and is totally unreadable! MelForbes 02:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest with you, looking at the two versions that have been reverted, both look good. I think the best bet would be to include the evidence from them both and make a longer section. --Robdurbar 19:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've read through and there's not much I can change. But I would like to reinstate the bit about the use at that conference. --Robdurbar 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rob, it seems you dislike the HTML comments within the article, but there is good reason to keep some of them. Comments of the form: <ref>Ibid. XX</ref> are there to make sure the reference does not get lost. It may be a pain to edit w/ the comments in there, but it is an even bigger pain to try and figure out what Ibid means when the parent cite is moved or removed. Can you think of a better way to make sure such cites don't get mucked up?EricR 20:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Use the history tab to retrieve sources. And check when your editing if you remove a source Robdurbar 09:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The term British Isles is often used

The above opening sentence is a much truer and NPOV description. So Thark, you are amiss with your revert in that instance. MelForbes 13:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote could be put at the beginning of every single article on Wikipedia, because there could always be someone who disputes a particular name or word in the English language. There is quite literally more than enough stuff about what some Irish people may or may not think in the article already. It needs pruning or better still, placed in an article of its own. TharkunColl 13:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll la la! MelForbes 13:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not quite sure what you intended by that response but I'm going to repeat my suggustion of removing the huge, bloated sections concerning the objections to the term by a small minority, into an article of their own, entitled something like British Isles (controversy). We can, of course, leave something in the main article, because this small minority may not be so small that its views need not be mentioned at all. Surely that's fair? TharkunColl 14:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really - its not Wikipedia practice to move minority views off to the side just because they're minortiy views.

But then again, minority views should not be given excessive coverage, as is the case here. Arcturus 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is probably a good job if you're a British nationalist considering the British, and their nationalist terms like "British Isles" are firmly in the minority in Ireland. 89.100.195.42 18:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are people who use the term British Isles continually on the receiving end of accusations that they are British nationalists? Is that the only real argument you have? As a matter of fact, the BNP, in common with the IRA, prefers to use IONA - so is it any wonder that few other people do? In any case, your argument is flawed. The vast majority of people who live in the British Isles use that term without any hint of political motivation, and only a small minority, probably mostly in Ireland, refuse to acknowledge this. TharkunColl 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the 'is often used' - it is a little weasly, but I see the advantages. If you were to force me to vote I'd say I preferred Mel's version, but I'm fairly neutral. --Robdurbar 17:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of moving them off to one side, but of not giving them undue prominence. We can have a simple paragraph in the current article, and a link to a new article where people can go into as much depth as they like, quoting at great length as many obscure sources as they wish. TharkunColl 17:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well if the article was more relaxed in it's phraseology, instead of being stuffy and overbearing as it is, then Thark, your approach may well have some grounds. I agree with Rob here, but it is very probably not a minority view. Ye, minority within Britain and Ireland maybe, but not a worldwide minority. Otherwise, let sleeping dogs lie. MelForbes 18:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Thark. There's far too much emphasis on the so called controversy in this article. It dominates the text in a most inappropriate way. I would second the suggestion that most of it is removed to a separate article, leaving this article with just a minor reference to it. How should we proceed? I guess we need to elicit other views on this proposal, perhaps in the first instance by a straw poll. Arcturus 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

TharkunColl and Arcturus persist in asserting that the concern about the term is a minority one. I´d love to see some data to support that. Hughsheehy 11:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you like my discovery of the phrase British Isles (in Latin) from the 10th century? You didn't comment on it, anyway, and I thought you were looking for such things.

It is pretty clear reading the ancient sources that the term British Isles is actually older than the term Britain (which was originally called Albion). It is also clear that the island only received the name Britain under Roman influence, as that part of the British Isles over which they had control. If they had deemed it worthwhile to conquer Ireland it would no doubt have been classed as part of "Britannia". British Isles is an ancient, Celtic name. The Irish have just as much ownership of it as the inhabitants of Britain. TharkunColl 12:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don´t understand the reference to me "liking" your discovery? What has my "liking" got to do with it? I come here when I can (hence no response for a while), and I am interested in such things, and it seems to be a good reference. I am hoping to be able to make some sort of (non-exhaustive) list of references to the term (or alternatives, or major sources that used no collective term) over the years. The current WP edit has references all over the place, with all sorts of points of view imposed on the text. As for the ancient sources, as we´ve seen, Iceland and maybe bits of Norway were also included in what was termed the British Isles, so perhaps the Icelanders and Norwegians have as much ownership of it as the inhabitants of Britain. The question behind the controversy seems to be (A) whether or not people still want to own it (or be owned by it) and (B) whether that fact is relevant. Apart from that, the term was used whenever it was used. We can surely put together a list of examples through the years. Hughsheehy 12:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If the controversy is substantial, then it deserves its own article, with a synopsis of it in this one and a "main article" link as is usual practice. Bazza 13:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Meantime, this again illustrates the lack of facts here. Arcturus and TharkunColl keep saying the controversy is non-existent, but provide no data to support this. Now Bazza is perhaps suggesting that the controversy is so big it should be moved to a separate page. Which is it?. Hughsheehy 12:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't suggest that. I'd been reading the above and noted that there was "discussion" about whether or not information about the controversy should be moved out to a separate page. Some people seem to say no, it shouldn't be moved because it's very important and at the same time say it must be written about in voluminous detail. My observation was that if it is judged so important, then that, de facto, means it should have its own page. Wanting and eating cake springs to mind. Bazza 13:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don´t know about cake, but my point remains. Is the controversy real and significant or not? Arcturus and TharkunColl say no, others say yes. What to do about it (if it is) is a separate question.Hughsheehy 14:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

most dictionary definitions include Ireland

'In Northern Ireland nationalists reject the term British Isles and use the awkward and ambiguous description these islands as an alternative, whereas unionists, when countering nationalist insistence on the territorial integrity of the island of Ireland, change the geographical frame of reference to that of the whole island-group that they call the British Isles, according to Guelke.

[...]The British government currently uses British Islands (as defined in the Interpretation Act, 1978) to refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, together with the Crown Dependencies: the Bailiwicks of Jersey and of Guernsey (which in turn includes the smaller islands of Alderney, Herm and Sark) in the Channel Islands; and the Isle of Man. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/British_Isles'

As can be seen above the term 'these islands' is used by nationalists and can be seen as equally POV, even more so if the normal dictionary definitions can be said to outline normal use of the term.

'British Isles

Noun 1. British IslesBritish Isles - Great Britain and Ireland and adjacent islands in the north Atlantic'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/British%20Isles

'the British Isles noun

     1. The group of islands consisting of Great Britain and Ireland, and all the other smaller islands around them, eg the Hebrides, Channel Islands and Isle of Man.'  http://www.allwords.com/word-the%20British%20Isles.html

-I agree though that just using it to include Northern Island- as the British government does- is probably the most reasonable way to use it, as that part is part of the UK. Why argue with the UK governments' definition and most frequently accepted definitions? Surely to do so is far more politically slanted and POV than to use the 'real world'- and most dictionaries'- use and definition of the termMerkinsmum 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that. The British government uses British Islands - specifically - as a legal term precisely because British Isles was already taken. It needed a term to describe the occaisions when the United Kingdom and crown dependencies act as one.

As for 'these isles' - it should be noted that, like Britian and Ireland, it could be used by anyone in any sentence and isn't (paticularly) a "term" the way that British Isles or Anglo-Celtic Isles are. Robdurbar 11:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the the name is that it is still being used as a political term. Some editors will deny this, but that's their point of view, and both sides have a point. British nationalists and Irish nationalists will continue differ. MelForbes 12:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not "The British Isles" is being used as a political term, it is also used in ways that are varied and often confusing. As has been pointed out, even the BBC and other major UK media often (not always, but often) use the term "The British Isles" as a synonym for "British Islands", or even as a synonym for the UK. Since dictionaries generally use usage as their guide, it is perfectly possible that dictionaries will eventually update the definition to note this confusion. That would make things interesting! Hughsheehy 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the term British Isles will indeed go out of fashion - then again, perhaps not. It certainly hasn't yet though, and it is not our job on Wikipedia to predict the future (still less try and influence that future) - especially when our judgements may be clouded by political bias or wishful thinking.

But on that score, imagine a situation, sometime in the future, where England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are all independent states. Would the term British Isles then become okay again? TharkunColl 14:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it might or might not go out of fashion. However, the way it is used now is certainly relevant. On the other point, I don´t know what a break-up of the UK would mean for the usage of "The British Isles" and it isn´t up to me to decide. Besides, it isn´t and might not ever become relevant. Hughsheehy 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hugh, how do you know they are using "British Isles" as a synonym for "British Islands"? On the BBC weather forecast a couple of nights ago Philip Avery used "British Isles" several times and it was abundantly clear what he meant - the whole group of Islands, including Ireland. Clearly it's a useful term for weather forecasters. I believe most people who use the term understand precisely what it means and use it correctly. Arcturus 17:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a list of lots of places that the BBC used the term in various different ways and posted it on the discussion page a couple of months ago, either here or on the terminology page. The BBC (and other UK media) use the term to mean all sorts of things, including the definition that this page uses. I have no doubt that the weather forecast often uses the term in that way, but Philip Avery on the weather forecast is just one sample. It´s a fact that the term gets used in a bunch of other ways - including as in "The British Isles and Ireland". (the specific question of whether that then includes NI or not, and thus whether the implied definition of "Isles" is the same as "Islands" is far too scary to get into).

As I said then, I hesitate to put in an edit any view that says to the BBC or other major media that their usage of a term (in an obviously professionally edited context and not just in quotation) is not "correct". I can say that it is inconsistent and confusing...although I got accused of pushing an "Irish Republican agenda" by saying that. I think that - if you look - you´ll see that use of the term in ways that imply clearly different definitions is not at all uncommon. I hesitate to say that it´s the majority use or even close, but it´s certainly not uncommon. Hughsheehy 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you referring to the list here? Mucky Duck 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

MAJOR UNILATERAL EDIT TO PAGE

TharkunColl has made a major edit to this page, deleting entire sections, without first building any consensus. Apart from moving references to the controversy, he has deleted whole sections on the origin of the term and surely broken lots of WP links. The addition of the new controvery page may - or may not - be a good idea, but it seems strange that it is done by TharkunColl, who has long asserted that the controversy is tiny and artificial and thus not even worthy of mention on the main page. Now, it is suddenly getting its own page. This seems like a bad faith edit. In addition, the main remnants of the page are now historical and political, which is strange for an entry on something that he (and others) have repeatedly said is a non-political geographical term. These changes may need to be reverted. Hughsheehy 16:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not suggesting bad faith on my part. I have repeatedly said that the controversy section is too large. Now that it has its own article it can be as large as it likes. And I did not delete anything at all - the origins of the term can now be found at the beginning of the main article. All the rest, word for word, is in the new article. I have deleted nothing!

As to your other point, as a geographical unit of course it has a history, just like Scandinavia or any other.TharkunColl 16:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not yet suggesting bad faith. However, the fact that you are asking questions on the terminology page that you already know the answer to from a discussion on the british isles page (or vice versa) is not a good sign - especially since you asked the question with the accusation that someone (probably me in the specific case) was "muddying the waters". In addition, making a large unilateral edits deleting huge chunks of text that others may feel belongs on this page for several reasons is hardly polite. You have also said that the controvery takes up too much space (which is probably true, and the page was too messy and often written in emotive or POV language), but your main argument was that the controvery is tiny - which does not match setting up an entire page to cover it. Finally, of course a geographical unit has a history, but it´s hardly the main point - if it´s a geographical unit. The history entry on Scandinavia is very short. Hughsheehy 16:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was a good job I brought up that Thule thing on a different talkpage, because it allows input from different people (as has now happened). There is no scholarly consensus that it was Iceland in these contexts. And just because no one has been bothered to write much of a Scandinavian history doesn't mean that it doesn't have one. TharkunColl 16:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eric R was also a participant in the original discussion, so it isn´t a different person. Hughsheehy 17:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

MAJOR UNILATERAL EDIT - and why not? That's what Wikipedia is all about - being bold etc. Nice one TharkunColl, what you've done makes eminent sense. I would strongly suggest this major change for the good is not reverted. Arcturus 21:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thark, what's your reasoning? If you are making changes, then a whole lot of other changes will have to be made. Why shouldn't I revert your unilateral adjustments? Please answer in detail. MelForbes 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mel, You've asked Thark for an answer and then gone ahead with a revert before he's had a chance - a unilateral revert at that. I'm reverting back (unilaterally) to at least give him a chance. Let's then leave it until Thark gives you an answer. Arcturus 23:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is very simple. There was so much detailed info about the controversy - mostly rather one sided - that it overburdened and distorted the whole article. If it needs to be so detailed then it needs its own article. You will notice that there is still a paragraph in the intro that mentions the objections to the term, and this is fair and reasonable. Furthermore, the link to the new article is right at the beginning. I cannot understand why there should be any objections to this. TharkunColl 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(Reduce indent) Seems logical. The contoversy is highlighted right at the start, leads to further information specifically on the controversy, and yet no longer dominates the article. Good idea. Bastun 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well British Isles is controversial. The term itself is POV. Many parts are re-edited and re-edited from a POV perspective. Now POV is not a dirty word. Everyone who wants to edit this article has POV. Let's get the POV correct at least. And since it is claimed to be an nonpolitical term, let's take the history section to a different page, the geography section could do with a separate page too. And the climate page. It has been suggested the the BI page should be very short and brief. Well I have proposed that in the past. Maybe we should go down that avenue with the article.MelForbes 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That may all be true and a separate page MIGHT be a good idea (although i doubt it). However, the problem with POV editing is now simply likely to be doubled,with POV edits on the "controversy" page saying it´s not controversial (or shouldn´t be), and new people coming here to re-insert the "controversy" again. The same is already the case with the "terminology" page. Good luck trying to keep POV off all three pages. It´ll be a nightmare. There are lots of other problems too, but that´s going to be a major one.

Much easier would be to edit the main page with clear and non-POV edits that simply reference the disagreement on the term, then move on. As an example, right now the whole section on "alternative terms" is in controversy, which is silly. These are fact, not controversy. I simply don´t see the need for creation of a separate page. It´s overkill for an issue that can be recognised in a few sentences on the main page - if only people would stop denying the existence of the issue while simulateously proposing it is major enough to get its own page.

Again, serious editors will require much more patience to track down the edits on multiple pages instead of one. I am opposed. Hughsheehy 13:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point about why a page is split. It is because a section of an article has become long enough to warrant having its own page (or, from the other side of the fence, too long for its current page). I agree with the split because the section on the naming controversy is too long. I have inserted a summary of the new article as required by Wikipedia:Article_size#Breaking_out_a_controversial_section. I do not believe the new article's name is the best - British Isles (naming controversy) would be more accurate. Bazza 14:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I like that change. A very brief summary of the controversy, alluded to in the opening paragraph of the article, and a link off to an expanded article for those seeking further information. I have changed the wording slightly ("Ireland and Britain, a sovereign..." was confusing). Bastun 15:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

For this very reason, I left the last paragraph of the introduction stand as it was, and placed the link to the new article in the first paragraph. I don't think we need to add a second paragraph further down, saying the same thing. As for the name of the new article, please feel free to change it if you want. TharkunColl 16:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I put that in so the article conformed to the guidelines. I personally think the short section should go back, and some of the detail taken out of the overlong introduction; it could also be moved to the new section if required. I won't do it myself - I think more people should mull this over a bit more. Bazza 13:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some editors sit all day at their computers watching for any change in the British Isles page. Well, I'm not going to keep you entertained. 86.42.131.109 23:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to agree that its an edit I'd paticularly agree with but if consensus is developing then who am I to disagree?

What I would now suggest, though, is that a summary paragraph is needed here. We can then perhaps remove the slightly unstylish links from the intro (or at least pipelink them!). I'll have a play around anyway. --Robdurbar 11:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've I had a shot at it per the be bold philosophy that has been so lauded above, but I'm sure it can be improved upon. Robdurbar 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there has been some disupte about that change. I really think the 'see this, see that' version is horrid. I'd rather go back to having a banner, personally. I don't think we should have a seperate articel but if we must it shouldn't stand in the way of nice prose. --Robdurbar 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly believe the banner was best for getting quickly to grips with the controversy thing. This was discussed before some months ago, and there was broad agreement to its inclusion. Good suggestion. Then someone took it off, there was no talk about that. MelForbes 21:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I seem to recall a rather long discussion about that. My problem is that, whilst removing the banner, the intro paragraph, the terminology section and the ref from the first line might all make sense on their own, together they act to exclude the controversy from the article. I therefore wonder if one of them ought to be reinserted. --Robdurbar 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it time for some edits back to the previous stable-ish version? I see little support for this change and quite a few objections. I see a "controversy" page that is silly, a straightforward argument that has now resulted in three pages on WP instead of one, and a future proliferation of the same information in three different versions - all of which will continue to be argued about. Again, I feel that the controversy/disagreement about the name can be handled simply, up front, in the kind of banner that Mel and Rob also support and the rest of the article can be handled in a clean way. The current situation with multiple pages covering slightly different flavours of the same information is a mess. Hughsheehy 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the only reason for splitting a section out of an article should be because it is getting too long. That, I recall, was what was happening to this article. Such splits must avoid removing any controversial information which is why I originally followed general good practice and inserted a summary text about the naming controversy with a "main article" link to the new article. I would like to see that back again here; but merging the two back again to recreate the unwieldy page we had before would not be a good move. Bazza 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, my view is that the controversy/disagreement/dislike on the name can be mentioned in the beginning and then left alone. The problem for a long time has been that there was repeated insertion and then removal of assertions that the term was offensive to some, leading to new insertions and deletions all over the article. If there is consensus that the controversy/disagreement/dislike exists then this behaviour might stop and we could present the facts (which apparantly are not actually controversial any more) and get on with it. Hughsheehy 08:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination!

The new article British Isles (controversy) has been nominated for Template talk:Did you know (and not by me, either). I suggest that any further discussion should take place on the new article's own talkpage. TharkunColl 16:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I've objected to its inclusion. Although I believe it's right to have this as a separate article, it still remains a POV vehicle for those who obect to the term "British Isles". Arcturus 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Channel Islands?

Hmm. Rhode Islander 11:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the article is the object of much POV and political spin, and nationalism. I have 2 texts, one from 1908 and the other from 1902 that do include the Channel Islands in the British Isles. When did they leave??? MelForbes 12:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

anon comment

Hi- I just want to comment that the name British attached to anything is an old throw back to the days when the rape of other countries made the British strong enough to impose a will on vast swathes of the world. There is nothing British about where i am from... though i have heard that about 200k britons live on Ireland and a welcome to them! simply this then - Ireland is not British (never was - if you consider the name as based on celtic peoples, the ancient Irish coming from differnet stock as the British). I dont know anyone who uses the term on this side of the Irish Sea - and truth be told i wouldnt use it without thinking of centuries of struggle oppression and warfare. so for the people who commented that minority opinion on this should be sidelined i would remind them the minority is the only other independent country of a pair. but having said all that... synonyms are common in all languages - you can call it the british isles if you fancy being childish and can't give up the "old empire", and we'll simply not refer to any geographical association between us and ye. Ireland and Britain covers it just aswell for me.

To the editors - do not edit too heavily as its a fair comment - unfortunately when people are involved differences regularly appear. the term British Isles is offensive.

[Not my comment. I just moved it here from the top of the page. Bastun 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ]

Geography

I find this section a little confusing ... The island-group is made up of more than 6,000 islands, the two biggest being Great Britain and Ireland. Great Britain, to the east, covers 83,698 square miles (216,777 km²), over half of the total landmass of the group; Ireland, to the west, covers 32,589 square miles (84,406 km²). The other larger islands are situated to the north and west of the group, in the Hebrides and Shetland Islands. ... It's the last sentence: first the Hebrides and Shetland are not "to the north and west of the group" The may be north but certainly not west. Second, if we are listing "other larger islands", what about Mainland Orkney, the Isle of Wight and Anglesey? Oh and the Isle of Man? To add to my confusion the next paragraph lists the islands starting with Great Britain and then an indented list implying that the smaller islands are part of Great Britain, which they may well be but the para I quote above states "The two biggest being Great Britain ..." Abtract 18:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ancient writers call this Iland a Brttiʃh Iland", and a quote from Tacitus that the habits and disposition of the people in Ireland were not much unlike the "Brittaines" The quote is contradictory in that if Ireland was indeed part of the "Brittaines" then why would Tacitus be comparing Ireland with the Brittaines. MelForbes 21:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The observation about the lists is well made. I have reorganised them, hopefully to the better, to remove the arrangement around political entities, and relisted them in clockwise order. Corrections and/or dissent welcome! Bazza 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Map (again)

The current map is OK until you examine it closely. It appears to be an historical physical map of the British Isles of 1000 to 2000 years ago. Epping Forest is many times its existing size. Other forests are shown which have not existed for centuries. The Isle of Thanet is marked as an island. There are islands shown on the Kent/Sussex border and around the Norfolk Broads where there is now dry land. The Wash is to big and the Fens are shown as marshes. Some of the terminology (xxx r. instead of river xxx, "Lake Country" instead of Lake District) suggest a non-British source. Where did this map come from? can somebody find a current physical map please. TiffaF 09:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You can see where the map came from by clicking on it. You're absolutely right, it appears to come from an American atlas of 1926! Waggers 13:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, almost nothing in Ireland gets a name. Bad map. Better needed. Hughsheehy 03:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I did see it came from:

Scan from "Historical Atlas" by William R. Shepherd, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1926 ed.

Original image at the Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection at the University of Texas at Austin.

If it was a representation of the British Isles in 1926 it wouldn't be a problem, islands don't change that rapidly. But, the coastline and certain other geographical features are the British Isles of 1000 to 2000 years ago! Compare the Kent coastline shown in the map with the images on the right.

"Historical Atlas" is a clue, I guess it was supposed to be (in 1926) a representation of Britain before 1000AD or in Roman Times. TiffaF 07:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term

Just checking the references on Bede and Athelstan. First, as far as I can see, it is not at all clear that the reference to Bede is referring to the British Isles. The section quoted, where the text now indicates that the reference to "islands" means the British Isles reads "In his time the Arian heresy broke out, and although it was detected and condemned in the Council of Nice, yet it nevertheless infected not only all the churches of the continent, but even those of the islands, with its pestilent and fatal doctrines. " Second, the reference to Athelstan is not adequate to support the text inserted. The reference is to a translation page, which doesn´t cover the history. The assertion is that the various Kings submitted and gave fealty to Athelstan. The reference doesn´t support this. Hughsheehy 09:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ping. Any thoughts? I have found a reference in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles that supports fealty being given to Athelstan by various Kings in Britain, but nothing to support fealty by any Irish (or Norse-Irish) Kings....and it wasn't in 937 as the edit currently states, but in 926. If no-one has better information I'll have to put in my own version and tag it with "verification needed". Similarly, the Bede reference isn't 100% unsatisfactory. Hughsheehy 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Second statement in the article

"The term British Isles is often misunderstood, and is sometimes considered objectionable"

This implies that one must misunderstand the term to find it objectionable - which is not true. I understand the arguments about the age of the term and that it predates the Act of Union, but I still find the term objectionable, from an Irish perspective.

My objection is not to the etymology of the term, it is that the word "British" is immediately associated with the United Kingdom in most people's minds.

I would like to rephrase the above quoted statement to something like:

"The term "British Isles" is often mistakenly associated strictly with the United Kingdom or with Great Britain. For this reason, many people in Ireland object to the use of this term to refer to the archipelago as a whole."

Any comments before I start a revert war? Windyjarhead 18:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

May I humbly suggest that "often" is an unsupported value judgement, and it would be better phrased as "The term "British Isles" can be mistakenly associated strictly with the United Kingdom or with Great Britain", or "can be misinterpreted as relating only to the United Kingdom or Great Britain". .. dave souza, talk 18:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

How about a version of a phrase in the terminology page (usage section). We could try something like "The term British Isles can also be considered irritating or offensive by some on the grounds that the association of the term British with the United Kingdom makes its application to Ireland inappropriate." Hughsheehy 10:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dave's point there. Hugh's is also reasonable, though I think we want to note that it can be both offensive and confusing and that these are seperate issues; Hugh only deals with one directly. Hugh's sentence may work quite well in the terminology summary paragraph. --Robdurbar 21:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

A delightful start to the new year. There has again been revert action on the first couple of sentences. I have tried to put in something reasonable, but I´m not sure it hits all the right targets. It´s now supported with the references from the naming dispute page that (i think) used to be here. Again, I am entirely unconvinced that having the extra page is going to improve matters. Hughsheehy 01:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

User:MelForbes has twice changed the first sentence to read: "The British Isles is a term sometimes used to refer to the group of islands off the northwest coast of continental Europe consisting of Great Britain, Ireland, and a number of smaller surrounding islands and islets." This, in my opinion, is ridiculous. The first time I reverted back to "The BI is the term used to refer to..." I put in the edit summary "By the same logic, paper is a term sometimes used to describe treated woodpulp" (something Mel also apparently disagrees with). Mel, we know you strongly dislike the term, but wishing something does not make it so. The term 'British Isles' is the term used by the majority of people on these islands - and the rest of the world - to describe them. If you want to bring in WP:V, I refer you to the various googlewars already reported on these talk pages. "... a term sometimes used..." simply does not cut it. Please stop. Bastun 00:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also add that this particular argument has already been had, a month ago. See the talk section #14 above, "The term British Isles is often used". Bastun 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like your raison d’être is to revert me on the BI page. It's not your first offence. If you can make the article better, then by all means, go ahead. I reverted another editor, then you started reverting my revert. It's not about opinions, it's about reality. The term British Isles has 2 meanings. One is quasi-political and the other is quasi-geographical. Anyone who claims that the term is used by all and sundry is an absolute pov-pusher. Even the American map from 1926 used on the page doesn't mention the term British Isles. I agree that the term is used and is widely known. The term is rarely used in sovereign Ireland, and if you say anything else, you must not be getting out that much. It's not a universal term. Therefore I am reverting you until the sentence is agreeable. MelForbes 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* Then I'll be reverting back, per your own arguments. Agreed it's not about opinions, it's about reality, and agreed it's rarely used in Ireland. But it is used. As such, and as its also widely used in the UK and elsewhere, saying it's "sometimes" used is, simply, wrong and PoV. Bastun 01:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun wrt reverting to a version about reality, but it should be a NPOV version. Now the term British Isles is used quite a bit and used more often than sometimes. By saying 'sometimes' the term is used, (I suspect) some political bias maybe employed in this decision, although the same could also be said with using 'often'. So I think the best option is not to use either and just say that it is a (not the) term used to describe the islands. The term is used as mostly a geographical name and less so political, it seems only the Irish want to make it into a politcal term. I have never used it or seen it used as a political term and I believe the majority would use it as a geographical term ONLY, the majority being those outside the Republic of Ireland (which is probably a ratio of 125 to 1 by English speakers at least). Marco 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes Marco, I concur broadly with your analysis. Although I reckon that if Bastun was touring through Iraq, British Isles would be the last words from his lips! And BTW quote The term is used as mostly a geographical name and less so political, it seems only the Irish want to make it into a politcal term. unquote, your sentence is contradicting itself. Maybe you are a bit confused too. MelForbes 16:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently its something that everyone who disagrees with Mel must suffer from. Marco, your compromise edit seems fine to me. Bastun 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello people, I'm just catching up on the feast of fun that is the 'British Isles' page...having been involved in the extensive discussion about it over the past summer. I see that debate has reignited of late (sigh). I'm from the Republic and, as related previously, am one of many who greatly dislike and avoid the term 'British Isles'...for reasons that must be all too plain! I personally use 'these Islands' or 'Anglo-Celtic Isles' instead. Given the thoroughness expected of any encyclopedic entry and the sensitivity that so many of us Ireland have with the term, I am very glad that the following text appears in the opening paragraph of the article introduction: '...and is sometimes considered objectionable. The term is not used to any great extent in the Republic of Ireland.' I would word this rather more strongly, however this is just about acceptable - I would strongly oppose any further dilution. The link to a fuller explanation of the controversy is a good compromise, avoiding the bitter editing wars that were a feature of last summer. To user Bastun, to back up what several of my countrymen have been saying, I must emphasise that objection to this term is widespread in our country - ranging from avoidance of its use to outright derision at its utterance! This is mainstream feeling and cannot be dismissed as the preserve of any radical minority. I cannot stress how important this is to us. Possibly before you joined us, there was a debate and vote as to whether the then 'British Isles' (terminology)' article should be renamed 'Britain & Ireland (terminology)'. The result of the vote sadly was 25 to 16 against, or thereabouts. This does at least serve to show that the controversy over the term 'British Isles' is quite significant. A fair and reasonable article on the term has to have a clear reference to this controversy. Well done user MelForbes (and others) for fighting the corner this time...let me know if you want me to provide any further clarifications!:O) Kind regards & Happy New Year! Pconlon 18:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, PConlon, and Happy New Year to you too. Being Irish born and bred, I'm well aware of mainstream Irish opinion on the term. I'd say the majority opinion is probably widespread indifference, to be honest - but I fully acknowledge that it is objectionable to some - those "some" being far more than a radical minority. However, as no survey has ever been done on this issue in Ireland (to my knowledge), we've nothing to back up anyone's claims, for, against, or really against :-P I agree the link to the controversy is a good idea. Cheers, Bastun 18:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Bastun, I agree with you. I am just wondering if there are any surveys done on the British Island to back up anyones claims, for, against, etc. Especially internet published sources as thy are readily verifiable. Comme c'est de la récidive, votre amende sera triplée' Thanks! MelForbes 01:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

position of terminology paragraph or "where angels fear to tread"

It seems to me that it is critical in any good article to define terms at the outset, not as a quasi-footnote long after even diligent readers have given up wading through detail (a crime to which I plead guilty, as can be seen from the edit history). So I've moved the Terminology paragraph up to just after History of the term. --Red King 17:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, totally agree. It's very important when writing an encyclopedia to get details into a NPOV bliss, so no-one gets upset. There are millions of people who can do this, but it only takes one récidive to upset those millions! MelForbes 02:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Can I propose that changes to the opening paragraph are discussed here first and a consensus agreed before a change is implemented? Otherwise we'll just get into another edit/revert war, which noone wants. One user has already been temporarily blocked. My own opinion is that what needs to be in there are four clear statements:

A definition of the British Isles;
Reference to the existence of the two sovereign states (and crown dependancy), all of which should be linked to;
Recognition that the term can be confusing or misunderstood (with a link to the terminology fork);
Recognition that the term is objected to and/or controversial (with a link to the naming dispute article).

I'm back to work in the morning so I'm not going to start now, but I'll have a look at it over lunch and propose a wording here. Bastun 01:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD I don't think that we should prohibt the editing of any section without discussion just because there's been a dispute over the page in the past. But clearly we can insist that any change which is then disagreed by another editor is discussed here... the reason Mal was blocked was not for not discussing new changes, but for reverting the removal of his change and breaking the three revert rule.

More broadly, though, I agree with your summary of what it needs to contain; I don't think anyone can reasonable disagree with that. --Robdurbar 10:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment; See this edit[8] MelForbes 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment No, let people see the full story rather than a selected highlight! [9] Bastun 13:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment The full story is there if anyone cares to follow. People aren't fools. MelForbes 13:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a ban on editing, or anything like it, till every minute change has been thrashed out, debated, amended, and voted on :-) What I'm suggesting is that if an editor thinks or knows his or her edit is likely to be controversial or unpopular, that it would be a good idea in that case to talk about it here first. Trying to force through a controversial change is pointless - it'll just lead to blocks and page protection. Trying to come up with something that everyone can at least live with would, I think, be more productive.

As it happens - I think it was Hugh who was editing around the same time I posted the proposal - the version there now is quite good and an excellent starting point. I can certainly live with the first line, and the only improvement I'd suggest is to split or rearrange the second sentence: "The term British Isles can be misunderstood, and is sometimes considered objectionable, primarily in Ireland" as I still think it implies that its mainly misunderstood in Ireland. While it is misunderstood here, I think it happens more often from abroad (as evidenced by Sony Youth in the Terminology fork and copied below). I'd suggest it be changed to:

"The term British Isles is sometimes considered objectionable, primarily in Ireland. It can also be misunderstood, particularly by those not from Ireland or Britain" (complete with existing footnotes and links). Bastun 11:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love that that were true; but havn't we got an example of an article from BBC Weather referring to the country of the British Isles? And didn't someone bring up a faux pas from a British TV guide when discussing the recent Coast series? Until British Isles (terminology) becomes a mandatory part of the national carriculums (carricula? carriculae? carriculum?) of the UK and Ireland, I'm afraid that I'm not convinced that we know where we are! Robdurbar 13:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

'Curricula' :-) Yep, undoubtedly there are mistakes made by the British, who at least should know better, but I believe the further away from Ireland you get, the more the 'BI' term in particular (and British/Irish relations, politics and borders in general) is unknown or misundersttod. A friend was once asked by a US geography teacher how long it took to drive from Dublin to London - and only last month a consultant from Canada that we had in work here in Dublin asked us why when he'd driven to Belfast at the weekend, all the postboxes were red and there were Union Jacks flying! Bastun 14:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)