Talk:Extreme points of the British Isles

Channel Islands

Although the OED is specific in including the Channel Islands, most of the other "authoratative" sources listed on British Isles do not mention them, saying something like (picking one example) "a group of islands off N.W. Europe comprising Great Britain Ireland, the Hebrides, Orkney the Shetland Is and adjacent islands". Absent any explicit reference, I think in reading those sources we have to go by a common-sense interpretation of "adjacent", which clearly omits the Channel Islands. A Martian looking at a physical map would unhesitatingly class them with France rather than the British Isles.

But furthermore, no matter how much more correct you think the one interpretation is than the other, I don't really see why it's useful to deny readers information. By wanting to omit it entirely, you seem to be showing absolute 100% certainty that exclusion of the channel islands isn't just wrong, it's frivolous. Doops | talk 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if I came across as rude, that wasn't my intention. I'll start first with your comment, "A Martian looking at a physical map would unhesitatingly class them with France rather than the British Isles." Unfortunately, Martians played little more than a minor role in drawing up the geography of Europe. I'm personally of the persuasion that many things would have made more sense if they had been allowed the space for involvement that they deserve. Common sense had little involvement too, and so looking at a physical map of Europe and deciding what goes where is a rather futile effort in attempting to undo centuries of migration and socio-political association and disassociation.

Its true that most dictionary definitions, with the notable exception of Oxford, don't mention them explicitly, but neither do they explicitly mention the Isle of Man. Only a truly narrow interpretation of "adjacent" would disqualify them, but, in any case, debating the true meaning of what it is to be adjacent to Great Britain or Ireland is academic when Googling "'British Isles' 'Channel Islands'" (web, scholar, or books) throws so much light on the situation. Every source from Encarta to Comlete Idiots Guide to Geography says they're in. Talk of their exclusion, or optional or "special case" status, is purely a Wikipedia thing and the preserve of a handful of bloggers. The fault of the issue lies with wanting to tidy-up loose ends, when in fact a stronger case can be made for the Channel Islands being the egg-shell from which that which we now so casually call the British Isles emerged, being the last outpost of the Duchy of Normandy.

One of my favourites sources is this school book from 1863. I've linked to the map of the British Isles on page 78, but see the revision questions on the following page, specifically the one that asks (to quote out of context): "What islands lie off the north coast of France in the English Channel? The Channel Islands. To who to do they belong? To the British." I'm all for not denying our readers useful information, but suggesting things "if the Channel Islands are not included" implies that they may be optional; on that count I am all for denying our readers misleading information. Maybe we could add the extreme points of each of the islands of the British Isles. That would be useful. Would it satisfy you? --sony-youth^pléigh 17:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't have the time right now to consider it carefully and reply likewise, but I want to quickly make one point -- I wouldn't be surprised (given its publication date) to find that that children's book would say of Barbados that it "belongs" "to the British"; but I don't think anybody would call Barbados part of the British Isles. At any rate, "belongs" is an ugly word often used by children when talking about political geography.

On another note, could you explain your "egg-shell" theory a little more? Doops | talk 18:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It´s not really such a stretch to say that "adjacent" means that the Channel Islands are not part of the British Isles. Jersey about as far from Britain as Beveland _{<re-edited to correct misprint>}(which isn´t an island any more but is definitely in Zeeland in The Netherlands) ie about 90 miles from Britain. Also, the Encarta definition states that the British Isles are "separated from mainland Europe by the North Sea and the English Channel." The trip from the Channel Islands to Britain involves crossing the English Channel. The trip from Jersey to France doesn´t involve crossing the English Channel.84.146.137.187 23:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC) (

Westernmost & Southernmost Points

Wouldn't the Westernmost point in fact be Rockall? And wouldn't the Southernmost point (& settlement) be in the Chausey Islands? I know the Chausey Islands are not currently administered by the United Kingdom, but British Isles is first and foremost a geographical description, not political, and the Chausey Islands are part of the Channel Islands. Christopedia (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

but Denmark says that Rockall is part of the Faroe Islands and Iceland agrees with that. As for the BI term it was a political term. ClemMcGann (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Stable version

I have restored the 'stable' version of the page after a quite controversial removal of an explanatory without good reason. If it is to be removed then a discussion needs to take place first. Fmph (talk) 10:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced article

The article contains no references. Now whilst either a traditional atlas or online mapping can quickly provide the four compass points, I've a particular issue with the lowest point as I can't find any suitable reference fro the claim. In any case, there is a landscaped former extraction pit near Peterborough which boasts a minus 5m contour. And before anyone says 'well, that's not natural', neither are many of the elevations below sea level in the Fens of eastern England - the land surface has lowered because of artificial drainage of the area. cheers Geopersona (talk) 08:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)